Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment, on 10th June, 1943, for the Whitsuntide Recess—met, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT

For the County of Stafford (Burton Division), in the room of Colonel the Right Honourable John Gretton (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. James Stuart.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GRAND UNION CANAL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
That Mr. Lambert be discharged from the Committee of Selection and that Mr. Holds-worth be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson. ]

Oral Answers to Questions — WHITE FISH INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the proportion of the landings of white fish in England and Wales during the years 1919 to 1939, inclusive, compared with the corresponding landings in Scotland during the same period; and what reasons he is able to give to account for the disparity?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): In the 25 years prior to 1939 the landings of white fish by British vessels in England and Wales showed an increase of approximately 50 per cent. The increase was primarily due to the development from the Humber ports of fishings in far distant waters. During the same period the landings in Scotland fell by approximately 10 per cent. That decline is attributable to a variety of causes, including diminution of the stocks of fish in the nearer waters in

which the Scottish trawlers worked and to the low prices realised for the fish. I take a very serious view of the comparative position shown by these figures, and I have invited the Scottish Council on Industry to consider in consultation with leading trade representatives the special problems of the industry in Scotland and to advise on the best means of dealing with the situation after the war.

Major Lloyd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the very full answer, may I ask him for an assurance that everything possible will be done to emphasise the deplorable way in which Scotland has been treated in this matter, as it is typical of many other instances where Scotland comes in second best?

Mr. Johnston: During the war the figures are showing a tendency in the upward direction. The hon. and gallant Member's Question asked for the figures pre-war. I can say that the position is slightly improved now.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Coal (Scottish Agriculture)

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why, in Scotland, licences for coal for agricultural purposes such as threshing grain, and for dairy farms for sterilising bottles, utensils, etc., are only granted out of surplus coal; whether he is aware that in certain districts of Angus there is no surplus coal, so that these licences are, under present circumstances, useless; and whether he will review the situation with a view to giving the necessary priority for coal required for agricultural purposes?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Scottish agricultural requirements for large coal are met from the general allocations of house coal to local merchants, supplies being released on the production of a permit from the local fuel overseer. Where no surplus current supplies are available, these requirements are provided by the merchants from their stock. Such stocks are generally good in Angus at the present time, but there are a few districts where the release of agricultural coal against licence has been delayed owing to local shortage. Steps have been taken to rectify this.

Point of Ayr Colliery (Output)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the weekly output of coal at the Point of Ayr Colliery since it was taken over by the Government and the corresponding output in the equivalent number of weeks before the colliery was taken over?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry) on 10th June. As stated on that occasion, I am precluded from publishing figures relating to individual undertakings. I am happy, however, to inform my hon. Friend that output at the Point of Ayr Colliery in the 18 weeks since the imposition of control was considerably above that in the previous 18 weeks.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the men at Point of Ayr Colliery feel they are freer than ever they have been since the pit was sunk?

Petroleum Board (Premises)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give the names of certain properties of which he has been informed, that have been requisitioned for the possible use of the Petroleum Board and held empty now for many months; and whether he will have the position reviewed in the light of existing circumstances on the understanding that these properties, if released, would be used for other urgent public purposes such as maternity homes, etc.?

Major Lloyd George: I am informed that there are no premises in the districts mentioned to me by my hon. Friend which are being retained empty for possible use by the Petroleum Board or oil companies associated with the Board. Certain premises which had been reserved were released last July and others at the end of December last.

Sir R. Glyn: While I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for his reply, will he make further inquiries into the case of the Bucklands Hotel, Wallingford, which the local authorities have asked for as a maternity home and which has been refused on the ground that it has been reserved for the Petroleum Board?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, I will, Sir.

Motor Car User, Watford (Petrol Allowance)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why permission is given for a petrol allowance to a lady, whose name has been supplied to him, to use a two-carburetter motor-car registered No. EPK 949, to travel daily from her home at Watford to her employment at Feltham instead of using the available public transport services; what amount of petrol is allowed her per month at present; and how much was allowed her prior to 1st
March, 1943?

Major Lloyd George: Allowances of petrol are granted to individuals on the basis of confidential statements. These statements contain information as to the applicant's business and, at times, as to his or her physical disabilities or private affairs. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am therefore unable to make public the reasons for granting or refusing particular applications.

Mr. Kirby: While thanking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him to look closely into this matter in its other aspects?

Major Lloyd George: This case had been looked into before the hon. Member communicated with me.

Roddymoor Pit, County Durham (Under-ground Work, Youths)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of an impending stoppage of work at Roddymoor Pit, County Durham, due to the fact that four youths, who are surface workers at the pit, refuse to be compelled to work underground and may be prosecuted, even though there are four youths who have volunteered for this work; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the facts in this case, but my present information is that there is no stoppage impending at this colliery.

Mr. Murray: Is the Minister not aware of the fact that the miners' lodge have already decided that if a prosecution takes place, they will hand in 14 days' notice?

Major Lloyd George: I do not understand that to be the position to-day. It was a few days ago.

Mr. Murray: I have the information in my pocket, and the Minister can have it at any time he wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES

Mr. Tree: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any official information with regard to the ownership of Trans-Canada Air Lines?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): Yes, Sir. As recently stated by the Canadian Minister of Munitions and Supply, Trans-Canada Air Lines is owned wholly by the Government of Canada.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER BOOTS (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will provide for the needs of agricultural workers in distributing any existing stocks of rubber boots?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir. Agricultural workers have received more than half the rubber boots released since the beginning of this year, and they will continue to receive their fair share of the available supplies.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABORATORY OVERALLS

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade why coupons for laboratory overalls are available for laboratory assistants in universities and technical colleges but not for the professors, lecturers and demonstrators who have to work in these laboratories; and whether he will make provision for coupons to be supplied in such cases?

Mr. Dalton: In view of the stringency of clothing supplies, I have had to limit the general occupational supplement to persons whose work is mainly manual and imposes heavy wear and tear on their clothing. For this reason, I have given the supplement to laboratory assistants and not to teaching staff, who generally spend many of their working hours in the lecture room. I regret that it is not possible for me to re-open the question of the occupational supplement for the present ration-

ing period, but I shall be glad to consider any particulars which my hon. Friend may care to send me, in connection with the arrangements for the next rationing period, which begins on 1st September next.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGIUM AND FRANCE (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he is now able to give further information as to the food situation in Belgium and France and, in particular, as to the adequacy of the food available for young children?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I would refer my horn Friend to the answer which I gave on 22nd April to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. Wilfrid Roberts) setting out the average weekly rations of the principal foodstuffs and showing the extent to which such rations are available. These figures have remained unchanged in Belgium, but the weekly ration of miscellaneous cereal foods, including roasted barley, pulses and other cereal products has been reduced from 197 grammes to 12 grammes. On the other hand there has been a considerable improvement in the supply of herrings. In France also there has been no change in the official rations for the whole country, though there have been certain local and apparently temporary cuts in the bread rations in certain departments. Recent reports further suggest that shortages of meat and vegetables in certain southern departments have been accentuated. Generally speaking these changes affect young children along with other classes of the population. There has, however, been no change in the special milk allowances for children and nursing mothers, while milk supplies naturally tend to improve in the summer months.

Mr. Stokes: In regard to Belgium, is it not a fact that the Belgian Government have asked for navicerts for 2,000 tons a month of special supplies of dried milk, medical supplies and vitamin tablets, and will the hon. Member grant the necessary navicerts?

Mr. Foot: That is another question, on which I have given frequent answers in the past.

Mr. Harvey: May I ask whether the actual supplies of milk promised correspond with the theoretical allowance in the case of Belgium?

Mr. Foot: I have already informed the House in previous answers that the rations of milk are fully available in the case of children under three years of age, and nursing mothers, but sometimes rations are not forthcoming in the case of children over three years of age.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Saluting

Mr. Silkin: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a corps commander, whose name has been given him, frequently has two military policemen following his motor-car on motor-cycles to take the names of officers and men, for disciplinary action, who fail to salute his car; whether he approves this action; and whether, in view of the need to save man-power and petrol, he will put an end to this practice?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): A commander is responsible for maintaining a high standard of discipline in his troops, and insistence on punctiliousness in saluting is one of the methods by which this high standard is achieved. Some of the troops in the case referred to in the Question had shown a lack of alertness by their failure to salute the corps commander's flag in accordance with orders, and in the circumstances the commander exercising his discretion adopted the measure referred to. On no occasion were the police taken on long journeys.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that it is practicable to salute a flag on a rapidly moving car?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Silkin: Does my hon. and learned Friend not think that this is a very expensive way of maintaining discipline?

Mr. Henderson: As a matter of fact, for the last six weeks the commander has been able to dispense with his escort.

Land Cultivation

Mr. De la Bèere: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection

with the Army Agricultural Scheme, he is now in a position to make some pronouncement of the results achieved; and whether he can give an assurance, in view of the short time the scheme has been recognised on the establishment, that there is no unnecessary restriction or methods which retard progress, in view of the increasing importance of increased food production?

Mr. A. Henderson: Whereas on 31st December, 1942, 9,727 acres were being cultivated under this scheme, the acreage has now risen to 13,000. In 1942, 40,000,000 potato and vegetable rations were grown and consumed by the Army. Many units have been self-supporting in potatoes and vegetables for over six months of the year and the value of freshly cut vegetables has been widely appreciated. In addition cereals, vegetables and fruit not needed for the standard ration have been grown and marketed. The further expansion of the scheme is subject to the very real limitations imposed by the restriction on the use of transport, by the increasing demands from many sides on the available agricultural machinery and by the fact, which my hon. Friend will appreciate, that soldiers must devote themselves in the first place to becoming efficient soldiers.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, because this branch of the Service is an innovation, requests are very often refused on the ground that it is not on the establishment? Will he make quite sure that all branches of the War Office realise that this is an important branch of the Service and must be treated as such?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Sir Herbert Williams: When the change takes place, are steps always taken to ensure that vegetables planted are in fact gathered?

Mr. Henderson: I do not know whether steps are always taken, but they should be taken.

Officers' Wives (Lodging Allowance)

Lady Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that


allowances to officers' wives are paid to the husband, who can, and sometimes does, refuse to make any payment to the wife, who is thus left penniless; and whether he will investigate the working of this system with a view to a change in procedure?

Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer the noble Lady to answers given to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow (Mr. Norman Bower) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 21st October, 1942, and 16th February, 1943, of which I am sending her copies.

Miss Rathbone: May I ask my hon., gallant and learned Friend whether this differentiation between officers and privates is not a survival from the last war and is not based on the theory that an officer is sure to be a good husband while a private is not so sure? Will he not have this antiquated procedure reconsidered?

Mr. Henderson: There are many administrative difficulties in the way of changing the present rule, so far as officers serving to-day are concerned, but it may interest the House to know that officers commissioned hereafter will be entitled to agree to this family lodging allowance being paid direct to their wives.

Married Couples (Service in same Unit)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to alter the rule forbidding married couples to serve in the same unit?

Mr. A. Henderson: The considerations which led to this instruction still hold good, and I regret that there is little prospect that it will be changed.

Mr. Dugdale: Why is the Army stricter in this matter than other branches of the Services?

Mr. Henderson: It is because, in the opinion of the military authorities, it is preferable to have the rule as it is to-day, namely, that a soldier and his wife may serve in the same locality, which, of course, does bring them closer to one another.

Mr. Stokes: Does that apply to the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Bellenger: Would "serving in the same locality" permit a husband and wife on an "ack-ack" site to serve on two different gun sites although actually in the same unit?

Mr. Henderson: I would like to have notice of that Question.

Cypriot Soldier (Commission)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the refusal to allow Bombardier E. Joannides, a Cypriot, to hold a commission in the Army is due to political or racial objections as he is a man of proved ability and capacity of the standard required for commissioned rank?

Mr. A. Henderson: My right hon. Friend examined this case personally before he wrote to my hon. Friend and satisfied himself that the decision that this man should not be commissioned was in the best interests of the Service.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not realised that this kind of thing leaves the impression of a stigma upon this man, and creates a bad impression among a number of his friends who are anxious to serve this country well, but are discouraged by the treatment of their compatriot?

Mr. Henderson: There should not be any question of stigma attaching to an individual who is not considered suitable to be a commissioned officer.

Mr. Kirby: Is it not a fact that Members of this House have sons and brothers serving in the Army without commissions?

Home Guard's Death, West Wickham

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the coroner's verdict at the inquest on Mr. Arthur Chudley, of West Wickham, Kent, to the effect that death was occasioned by heart failure due to and following strain while engaged on military Home Guard duties; and whether, in the light of this fact, he will reconsider his recent refusal to institute medical examination of the Home Guard?

Mr. A. Henderson: Yes, Sir, and I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy with the relatives of Corporal Chudley. He was an enthusiastic Home Guard and set the highest example to his comrades. I understand


that before the exercise it was explained to the men that those should fall out who felt they were not equal to it or found in the course of it that the training was too hard. Much as I deplore the death of this Home Guard, I do not consider that the facts of the case show that the arrangements outlined in the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 1st June should be modified.

Mr. Smith: Now that the Home Guard are qualified for military death and disability pensions, what logical alternative is there to giving them proper and periodical medical examinations, together with grading for duties?

Mr. Henderson: It would be extremely difficult to carry it out, having regard to the number of the Home Guard and to the number also of doctors available.

Mr. Smith: It is done in the National Fire Service.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is not the presence of elderly men of doubtful fitness, however keen they may be, a source of weakness to the Home Guard?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think there are many of them, but I would like to make it clear to the House that any Home Guard who may consider himself not quite fit is entitled to ask for a medical examination.

Fuel and Light Allowance

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardship caused to men ordered to billet out when their fuel and light allowance is stopped regardless of the fact that no reduction is made in the rent they are called upon to pay; and whether he will restore such allowance in these cases?

Mr. A. Henderson: I assume my hon. Friend refers to men who in the absence of public accommodation at their duty station are given lodging, fuel and light allowances. Such men while on leave, in hospital or on temporary duty elsewhere continue to receive lodging allowance in order to pay for a lodging they have to retain and pay for. This does not apply to fuel and light, and unless they are entitled to fuel and light allowances at a temporary duty station they are not paid these allowances

Mr. Dugdale: Would my hon. and learned Friend answer more particularly my Question which is concerned with those people who are ordered, not on leave but while on duty, to billet out and who do not find any reduction in their expenses during the summer but do in fact lose this allowance?

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. A soldier ordered to billet out and find his own accommodation does receive the allowance to which my hon. Friend refers in his Question. It is only when he is absent from that billet that he forfeits the fuel and light allowance. The way the matter should be dealt with would be for the landlord to take into consideration the saving of fuel and light when the soldier is not there.

Mr. Dugdale: Might I send all the necessary particulars to my hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Henderson: Certainly, Sir.

Voluntary Aid Detachments

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any steps are being taken to put in force the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on Voluntary Aid Detachments; and whether he will undertake not to put it into force until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of discussing the White Paper?

Mr. A. Henderson: As my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) on 8th June, he has waited to promulgate his decision to accept this Report, until he had learned whether it is the wish of the House to discuss it. He is not aware of any substantial demand to debate the Report, and he proposes to issue instructions shortly.

Earl Winterton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that those of us who took some part in the discussions leading to this matter are satisfied that this is a perfectly fair compromise which is accepted by the heads of the Service in question, and that we shall strongly resist on the Floor of the House any attempt to upset the arrangement?

Captain Crowder: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the great


dissatisfaction that is being caused by the dismissal of Commandants of the V.A.D., and will he look into that personally?

Captain Duncan: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that point is a cause of great unpopularity?

Mr. Henderson: There is only a limited number of Commandants, not a very large number, and I am afraid that their interests will have to be subordinated to the general interest.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is not a case of the interests of the Commandants but of the interests of the V.A.D., and that these young women now have nobody to look after their interests as in the case of other Women's Services?

Mr. Henderson: I think the House will agree that this scheme on consideration is a very satisfactory solution to a difficult problem.

Axis Tank Losses, Africa

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War how the figure of 2,550 tanks lost by the Axis Powers in North Africa was arrived at; whether the count was made by his Department; and, if so, why no figure as to the number of German Tiger Mark VI. tanks is available?

Mr. A. Henderson: The figure of 2,550 tanks lost by the Axis Powers in Africa is an estimate prepared in the War Office. It covers the period from the start of the campaign in Abyssinia, includes German and Italian tanks, and is based on reports received from time to time from theatre commanders. Details of the types of tanks captured or destroyed have not yet been received from North Africa, where the battle area has not yet been cleared.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon., gallant and learned Friend aware that the Tiger tank is a new type of tank and that only a small number of them were used in Tunisia? Surely it ought to be possible to tell us how many were captured?

Mr. Henderson: It is true that only a small number of Tiger tanks were used, but they were used over a very large area.

Mr. Stokes: But does not my hon., gallant and learned Friend know the number?

Mr. Henderson: I do not know the number. I have just said that we are waiting for reports from Africa, and until those reports are received we cannot give the House the information.

Next-of-Kin (Overpayment Refunds)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that widows and relatives of officers killed on active service are receiving demands for the repayment of small amounts of pay and allowances overpaid to the dead man some months previously; and whether, in view of the distress caused by this procedure, he will give instructions that it is to cease?

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that, in future, when any member of His Majesty's Forces is killed on active service and pay and allowances are continued owing to non-notification of death to the authorities, no application for a refund of such payment and allowances will, in any circumstances, be made to the next-of-kin?

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will discontinue the practice of claiming small refunds of pay from the next-of-kin of officers and men killed in action?

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of the death in action or by accident of a soldier of any rank, he is prepared to discontinue the present practice of making a subsequent claim for any over-payments and whether, in future, over-payments in such cases will be written off?

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will rearrange the system of pay to officers so as to prevent cases of bereaved parents or wives being called upon to refund amounts credited to officers who have lost their lives in the service of the State?

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to write-off automatically overpayment of pay and allowances for the month in cases where an officer or soldier is killed or has died while on active service?

Mr. A. Henderson: I welcome this opportunity to give a brief outline of the practice of the War Office, which is also


the practice of the Air Ministry, in these cases and so help to dispel any misunderstandings there may be. The War Office practice does not in general differ from the custom generally observed by persons with claims against the estates of deceased persons. No claim is however made by the War Office against the estate in the case of officers unless the amount exceeds £5. It has moreover recently been decided that in addition no claim is made when the estate is less than £2,000 and there are dependants or when the estate is less than £100 and there are no dependants. Special consideration has always been given to any circumstances of hardship. In the case of other ranks no claims at all are made.

Mr. Bower: Is it not a fact that an undertaking was given during the last war that this procedure would be discontinued owing to the distress caused by reopening these wounds after such a lapse of time? Does that undertaking no longer hold good?

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid I have no knowledge of any such undertaking.

Sir A. Maitland: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that however admirable the arrangements he has outlined would be in practice they are not being carried out, and that cases have occurred quite recently where dependants of men killed have received a demand for repayment a very few days after?

Mr. Henderson: If my hon. Friend has knowledge of any particular case in which the regulations are not being carried out, I shall be glad if he will let me have it for investigation.

Miss Ward: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that these cases have already been quoted, and have these been investigated? Can he give an answer to the House now? There has been plenty of publicity. We would like an answer to-day.

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid the hon. Lady will not get an answer to-day. She will have to wait until I have personally seen the cases to which she refers before I can personally investigate them.

Miss Ward: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly turn up the files?

Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not reconsider the limit of £5,

and would he not undertake that in future the War Office will show the same consideration to the relatives of deceased persons as an ordinary, decent, private citizen might be expected to do?

Mr. Bellenger: When do these new rules operate, of £2,000 and £100?

Mr. Henderson: They operate now.

Mr. Astor: How great a sum is involved over the year in these small payments?

Mr. Henderson: I should require notice of that question.

Anti-Mine Devices

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the use of the Scorpion mine destroyers was a success in the North African campaign; and why these machines had to be improvised in Egypt instead of being manufactured at home in quantities?

Mr. Henderson: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to add anything to the answers given to my hon. Friend on 13th April and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 4th May.

Mr. Bellenger: Although I appreciate the desire for security, were not these Scorpion mine destroyers used in the last war, and therefore the Germans are presumably fully aware of the possibilities of these weapons? At any rate, may I ask whether the War Office are giving close consideration to this and other weapons in order to destroy minefields, which will probably be one of the main forms of defence against our troops?

Mr. Henderson: I can certainly give that assurance.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a mine-clearing tank of this type was offered to the War Office in 1939, and that many of the casualties at El Alamein and afterwards have been the result of the absence of these weapons?

Mr. Henderson: As regards the first part of that question, I have no knowledge of it. As regards the second part, I would certainly not accept it.

Telegraph Service, North Africa

35. Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any telegraphic facilities to North Africa are available to relations of men serving in that territory?

Mr. Henderson: A telegraph service known as the "Concession" service is available to and from North Africa for the benefit of British soldiers serving in that theatre and their next-of-kin resident in this country. Telegrams sent by this service must relate to essential business of an urgent and private nature and are limited to two in the outward direction and one homeward per month. This limitation has to be imposed as the telegrams are sent over Services operational channels. Full details are available at all Post Offices transacting telegraph business.

Home Guard (Anti-Aircraft Duties)

Major Petherick: asked the Secretary of State for War the authority under which members of the Home Guard in factory units can be transferred compulsorily to anti-aircraft units?

Mr. A. Henderson: A man enrolling in the Home Guard is enrolled in the force as a whole, and not for service with any particular unit. This, of course, is subject to the general conditions of service of a Home Guard, which prevent his being ordered to give whole-time service or to live away from his home before mustering.

Major Petherick: Can my hon. and learned Friend assure me that men drafted to anti-aircraft units from factory units are being employed near their own homes?

Mr. Henderson: As far as possible, yes.

Paper Economy

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that over 25,000 tons of paper were used by the Army last year and that this represents an increase over previous years; and, in view of the promises given in the past to reduce the amount of paper used, what steps he is taking to effect substantial economies in its use?

Mr. A. Henderson: I think my hon. and gallant Friend in the second part of his Question has in mind the statements which have from time to time been made, as, for example, by my right hon. Friend in his Estimates speech, about the steps taken to reduce paper work and correspondence in the Army. While I have no doubt there will always be room for improvement, a great deal has been and is being achieved by a day-to-day watch on a vast mass of detail, and the efforts in this direction will by no means be relaxed. But improve-

ment of organisation and methods with a view to a reduction of paper work does not necessarily mean that the total quantity of paper used for Army purposes will be reduced. With the increasing complexity of Army organisation and equipment there is, for example, a constant need at home and abroad for fresh technical and training manuals, and there is an increasing demand for paper for educational matter in the Army. These demands must necessarily be met.

Captain Duncan: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the War Office itself is the worst offender, through never writing on both sides of the paper, and is he prepared to take action?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Sir H. Williams: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is the practice in the War Office and other Government Departments for highly-paid people to write out the letters by hand and to send them to other people to be typed? Would it not be a good thing to educate highly-placed people to dictate letters, in order to save time and paper?

Overseas Service (Home Leave)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether home leave is now being granted, when shipping is available, to troops who have served overseas for six years or more; and whether it is possible to include in this category men who had returned from overseas and been placed on the reserve only a few weeks before the outbreak of the present war?

Mr. A. Henderson: Officers or soldiers who have served overseas for at least six continuous years are being brought back to the United Kingdom for posting to the Home Establishment. A break of up to six months at home is disregarded in assessing the number of years of continuous service.

Hospital and Medical Services (Tunisia)

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give some account to the House of Commons of the arrangements and results of the hospital and medical services in Tunisia?

Mr. A. Henderson: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Detailed figures have not yet been received from North Africa, but all reports show that the medical arrangements made were highly successful. The medical services which formed part of the North African Force included certain new units which had not previously been employed on active service. Such, for example, were the field surgical units, which were attached either to main dressing stations of field ambulances or to casualty clearing stations. These units are in effect highly mobile operating teams, designed and fully equipped to function as such in forward areas. Associated with them were the field transfusion units, which have revolutionised the treatment of shock in the field. They conveyed and distributed the large quantities of blood and plasma used throughout the campaign, and together with the field surgical units, played a large part in markedly reducing the mortality rate among casualties.

The evacuation of casualties on the whole followed lines which had been found successful in the past, but the evacuation was greatly accelerated by the transport facilities now available. These included ambulance cars, hospital trains improvised from rolling stock available locally, hospital ships and aircraft. American aircraft evacuated over 16,000 British and American troops. The divisional medical units on occasion handled as many as 400 to 600 casualties a day. The less urgent cases were sent direct to casualty clearing stations, the cases in need of blood transfusion and resuscitation were retained, and the cases requiring immediate operations were dealt with by the field surgical units. The hospitals in general used to accommodate casualties were general hospitals of 200, 600 and 1,200 beds. The speed with which they opened on new sites and accepted casualties was one of the outstanding features of the campaign from the medical point of view. These hospitals were mainly accommodated in tents, although the administrative parts were often in buildings. Hospitals were provided with the necessary specialist personnel and equipment to deal with cases of all types, including surgical, medical, laryngological, ophthalmological, dermatological, psychiatrical, neuro-surgical and maxillo facial cases. Special depots were provided to care for convalescents and for

those who were lightly wounded, and to ensure that they were soon fit to return to duty. The general health of the troops and their standard of hygiene remained good throughout the campaign. This was due at least in part to the improved education of all ranks and to the better understanding by all of the problems involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Silkin: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he now has any information about British prisoners of war in Campo P.G. 154; where this camp is situated; why prisoners of war at this camp are not able to communicate with their relatives and friends at home; and whether he can make any statement as to conditions at this camp?

Mr. A. Henderson: Campo P.G. 154 was an Italian camp for British prisoners of war, situated in Benghazi: the occupants were removed by the Italian authorites before the arrival of the British 8th Army. My right hon. Friend referred to the lack of information about the subsequent movements of some of these prisoners in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 25th May last, and I regret there is nothing I can add to the statement made on that occasion.

Mr. Silkin: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, in one particular case, nothing has been heard from these prisoners of war since last October? Ought he not to take steps to find out what has happened?

Mr. Henderson: We have done so. That is exactly what we have been trying to do. I am afraid that an explanation may be found in the fact that a ship on which a number of these prisoners of war were being transported was sunk.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any further statement on conditions in Campo P.G. 21; and whether British prisoners are still detained in this camp?

Mr. Henderson: A further visit to Camp No. 21 was made by a representative of the Protecting Power on 12th April, 1943. The report of the visit discloses that the representations to the Italian Government referred to by my right hon. Friend have had no effect, and that the conditions are


deteriorating. The Protecting Power have therefore been requested to inform the Italian Government that unless radical improvements are immediately made, His Majesty's Government must insist upon the closure of the camp. So far as is known, British prisoners of war are still detained there.

Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that exactly a month after that visit by the Protecting Power his right hon. Friend told me in this House that conditions in that camp were generally satisfactory? Is it really necessary for telegraphic reports from the Protecting Power to take over a month to reach the War Office?

Mr. Henderson: The visit may certainly have been made a month before my right hon. Friend made his statement, but it does not follow that a report was received before my right hon. Friend made that statement.

Mr. Driberg: Cannot such reports be hurried up, in view of the urgent anxiety felt by the relatives of prisoners?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend will realise that, if I may say so, there is a war on, and communications are not quite as effective as they are in normal times.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

International Brigade

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that nothing further can be done to secure the services of former members of the International Brigade for the different Armed Forces of the Crown?

Mr. A. Henderson: In so far as they are British subjects, all who were born since 1st January, 1900, will by now have registered under the National Service Acts, and will have been dealt with by the Ministry of Labour. Unless they are unfit or in a reserved occupation, they are presumably in one or other of the Armed Forces. If they are over military age or aliens they are free to volunteer for service in the Army in the normal way.

Mr. Hannah: Does that reply cover the whole question of the International Brigade?

Mr. Driberg: How many former members of the International Brigade have been discharged under paragraph 390, XVIII (a) of King's Regulations?

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid I could not say without notice.

Major Petherick: Is there any reason why we should try to secure the safety of members of the International Brigade who are not British subjects, any more than of any other soldiers of fortune?

Mr. Dugdale: Have not these men been very useful in helping us to fight?

Mr. Henderson: I think I ought to say that a considerable number of those who served in the International Brigade are serving satisfactorily in the British Army, and that, indeed, some of them have received commissions.

Overseas Service (Recognition)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given to the need for the issue of chevrons to indicate service overseas, medals for service in big engagements, and some indication to signify that men or women have been wounded on service; and can he now make a statement on this matter, making it applicable to all services?

Captain Gammans: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the North African campaign has now been carried to a successful conclusion, he will consider the issue of a medal to the men and women of the Fighting Forces and the Merchant Navy who have taken part in it?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The matter is under active consideration, and I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave on 9th June last to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Withington (Squadron-Leader Fleming).

Mr. Bellenger: Why is there delay in coming to a decision on this matter? My right hon. Friend will recognise that the matter has now been under the active consideration of the Cabinet for some considerable time.

Mr. Attlee: I am sure my hon. Friend knows very well the difficulty of settling


these things, with a war going on in various theatres. It is not an easy matter; my hon. Friend knows that well.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the steps suggested in the Question were all carried out in the last war, and that there is a growing demand that the services of our men and women should be recognised? Surely there is no difficulty about issuing chevrons for service overseas?

Mr. Attlee: I am aware that it was done in the last war, but my hon. Friend will realise the great sense of injustice that may be caused if someone is left out.

Mr. Shinwell: Has my right hon. Friend observed the large number of American Forces in this country wearing distinctions? If it can be done by the Americans, why is there any difficulty in the way of its being done here?

Demobilisation

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether the plans of demobilisation of the Armed Forces, after the war, will be based on the principle that priority of demobilisation will be given to men who have served the longest overseas?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): As I stated in this House on 1st December last, the Government's plans for demobilisation are based in the main on the broad principle of discharge according to age and length of service, but, in accordance with the undertaking I gave on 22nd April, further consideration is being given to the suggestion that in applying this principle special weight should be given to service overseas.

Sir F. Fremantle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise also that there will be many cases in which the needs of the civil population will require others to be demobilised than those in these two categories?

Sir W. Jowitt: I agree, and, of course, that has to be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTHRATE AND POPULATION

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he can promise a day for

the consideration of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Group-Captain Wright) and others about the trend of population in this country?

[That this House views with alarm the continuing low birthrate and the resulting approach of a decline in population so steep as to menace the future security and prosperity of the British nation and race, and urges His Majesty's Government to adopt all possible measures, economic and educational, to avert this danger, including the introduction at the earliest practicable date of a scheme of children's allowances and improved social services, as already approved in principle by His Majesty's Government.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The desire for a Debate on the trend of the population has been noted. I am afraid that, in the present state of Public Business, I am not able to promise a special opportunity for the consideration of the Motion standing on the Paper, but certain aspects of the problem could be raised on a Supply day on the appropriate Vote.

Mr. Hannah: Do the Government realise the perfectly terrible importance of this question?

Mr. Eden: I do not know that I would accept my hon. Friend's dramatic epithet, but I do agree that a discussion might be useful; and it could be held in the way I have suggested.

Miss Rathbone: Can a special time be allocated on that day, by arrangement through the usual channels, for discussion on this matter, rather than leaving it to be referred to in an omnibus Debate?

Mr. Eden: That is a matter for you, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDLAND AFFAIRS (DISCUSSION)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the time devoted by the House to discussion of purely Scottish affairs; and whether, in view of the large concentration of population in the Midlands, he will make arrangements for a comparable amount of time to be allotted to discussion of Midland affairs?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and


to the second part in the negative. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the difference between England and Scotland in matters of law and administration requires separate Scottish Measures, and the consideration by this House of various phases of Scottish administration. No such considerations apply in regard to the Midlands.

Mr. Dugdale: While fully recognising the very great importance of Scottish affairs and the ability of those Members who raise them, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that housing, health, and other local matters in the Midlands—and, indeed, in London and other very large centres of population—are very important, and that it is the duty of hon. Members to raise those matters when possible?

Mr. Eden: It is not a question of rival importance—we should get into difficulties if we adopted that basis—it is a question——

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I might finish my sentence. It is a question of the different bases in which these matters have their origin. So far as Scottish questions are concerned, the basis is found in 1707.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there not very strong complaint in Scotland about the lack of opportunity for discussion of Scottish affairs? Would the Leader of the House consider a proposal which is often made, that we should be allowed to discuss Scottish affairs in Scotland?

Mr. Buchanan: Could I ask the Leader of the House, seriously and earnestly, whether, in view of the terrible housing conditions and the terrible position in regard to tuberculosis in Scotland, he would, instead of reducing the time available, allow more time to consider these very serious problems in that part of Great Britain called Scotland?

Mr. Eden: That is a different question from the one on the Paper. At the moment I am trying to withstand an attack from one direction, only to meet one from another.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is it not better that one Member should suffer the chagrin of losing the Adjournment than that Scotland should he deprived of the opportunity to have its affairs debated?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether, when considering the post-war unemployment problem, he will consult with the Departments of State concerned to ensure that in concentrating industries and denuding staffs in areas depressed between the two wars, special regard is had to the prospects of the firms involved when hostilities cease?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir. The Departments concerned are keeping well in mind the Government's pledge in the White Paper on Concentration of Production (Cmd. 6258) to take all measures open to them to assist the speedy reopening of closed premises.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that between the two wars some small industries were induced to come to these depressed areas, to combat unemployment, and that if Government Departments, especially the Ministry of Labour, get their way by denuding them of staffs they will close these industries down so that they will never open again, and we shall be back after the war to a state of depression once more?

Mr. Levy: Is it in the interests of employment that the small firms should be closed down, as they are being, so that it will take a long time to reopen them? How can such a policy be in any sense conducive to employment after the war?

Sir W. Jowitt: The immediate need is to provide man-power for the Services. This Question deals with the position after the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEVERIDGE REPORT (IMPLEMENTATION)

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister without Portfolio how many persons form part of the small staff of specially appointed senior officers who are co-ordinating the efforts of existing Government Departments in working out the Beveridge proposals; what their names are; and whether he can now make a further statement as a result of the constructive work that has been done?

Sir W. Jowitt: As regards the first two parts of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave


to the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) on 18th March. As regards the last part, constructive work on the scheme is proceeding expeditiously. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the problems involved in the working-out of the scheme are intricate and largely interrelated, and I am afraid that it is not possible at this stage to make any further statement.

Mr. Mander: Has my right hon. and learned Friend not said publicly that much hard and constructive work has been done by the Government on the Beveridge Report, and cannot we be told some of the results of their hard and constructive thinking? Cannot he make a statement in the near future?

Sir W. Jowitt: I have said publicly, what I said in answer to my hon. Friend's Question, that much constructive work is being done, and being done expeditiously, and I have also said that I am not prepared to add to what I have said at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that constructive work is being done, will he send a copy of his reply to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department?

Earl Winterton: In view of the interest taken in this matter in all parts of the House, may we expect to have a White Paper issued before the Summer Recess or a statement made to tell us what has been done?

Sir W. Jowitt: I cannot give my Noble Friend any promise, but the Government are fully aware of the widespread interest in this matter.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: As the names of the civil servants who helped Sir William Beveridge with his Report were published, why cannot the names of the senior civil servants who are helping to work it out now be published?

Sir W. Jowitt: Personally, I should not have any objection, but the practice is, as I ascertained before answering the last Question, not to give the names of civil servants.

Sir H. Williams: Since His Majesty's Government exported Sir William Beveridge to the United States of America, has not interest in him very much declined?

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS WARFARE

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Prime Minister what information His Majesty's Government have received suggesting that the Axis powers may use gas?

Mr. Attlee: It would not be in the public interest to give the information for which my hon. Friend asks. The policy of His Majesty's Government and of the Government of the United States has already been made clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tax Credits and Excess Profits Tax Repayments

Mr. De la Bère: asked the of the Exchequer whether he can make a more precise statement of the Government's attitude in connection with tax credits and Excess Profits Tax repayment after the war, in view of the uncertainty felt by a number of industrialists throughout the country and of the necessity for making provision for industrial development at the conclusion of hostilities?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on this subject on 14th April in the Debate on the Budget Resolutions and to the further assurance which I gave on 10th June in answer to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bewdley (Major Conant).

Mr. De la Bère: Were not these assurances both vague and general, and what does my right hon. Friend mean when he says that the Government will repay as far as possible? Does he realise that industrialists really want to know whether they are td get anything at all?

Sir K. Wood: I would direct my hon. Friend to the Statute.

Mr. De la Bère: These statements are both vague and general, and there is absolutely no sense in them at all, and people want to know where they stand.

Sir Granville Gibson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that repayment out of 20 per cent. of E.P.T. after the war is so hedged round by conditions that there is not the slightest hope of anybody receiving anything and cannot he make some relaxation?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. There is no foundation for that statement. The provision is made that was desired by this House after full discussion.

Mr. De la Bère: It is somewhat unsatisfactory though.

Service Gratuities

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make some general pronouncement regarding the methods which the Government propose to adopt in connection with the payment of gratuities to members of the Services at the conclusion of hostilities; and, in particular, whether it is proposed to make a lump-sum payment or extend this reward for the number of years served in each case over a period of years?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 4th March, 1942.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he did not actually give any information as to the practical intentions of the Government and is it not time that members of the Services should be given some indication even of the broad principles of the Government's intentions?

Sir K. Wood: I would ask my hon. Friend to look at the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister on that occasion.

Mr. De la Bère: It did not carry us very far.

Old Age and Widows' Pensions

Mr. Mathers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the comparatively small proportion of old age and widows' pensions finance realised from individual as compared with Exchequer contributions and the inequity of requiring large fixed weekly payments from persons with widely different incomes, he will consider the abolition of individual contributions and provide the necessary funds from general taxation?

Sir K. Wood: This matter could not be dealt with apart from the Beveridge plan. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 16th February last, the general lines of development of the social services laid down in

the Beveridge Report, which is framed on a contributory basis, are those that the Government would wish to follow.

Mr. Mathers: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the object of this Question is to ask the Government not to close their minds to any means of financing the Beveridge proposals against the day when the large individual contributions that are necessary will come to be realised by those who have to pay them?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right, hon. Gentleman still as enthusiastic as ever about the Beveridge plan?

Sir K. Wood: Absolutely.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this matter, to bear in mind his own very good example in dealing with the chattels scheme, when he did away with contributions and thus effected great economy and saving of money?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I note that, and I also note that my hon. Friend asks the Government to pursue the Beveridge plan.

Mr. De la Bère: How can the Government close their minds, seeing that their minds have never been opened?

Wage Earners (Income Tax)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the request from 2,500 workers of Harland and Wolffe's shipbuilding yard for Income Tax to be deducted as it is earned; and what answer he has returned to this request?

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has finished his consideration of the many representations made to him that Income Tax should be deducted on current earnings; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the subject?

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the adoption in the United States of America of the Pay-as-you-go method of collection of Income Tax, he has further considered establishing this, or some similar, method in this country as soon as possible, in view of the urgency of the matter


and the general consensus of opinion in favour of its adoption; and has he any statement to make?

Sir K. Wood: I have considered the letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) refers. As I informed the House during the Budget Debates, the Board of Inland Revenue are at present engaged in the investigation of the question of deducting tax from wages on a current earnings basis.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the fact that a deputation came here six months ago representing the whole of the ship-building industry of this country as far as the workers are concerned, appealing to him to take the tax off the money as it is earned; and not only that, but that 18 months ago I presented to him a scheme that was drafted by the best actuaries we have in the West of Scotland, so that the matter has been before him all that time and the Government are still considering what they are going do about it?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us whether he is able to accede to the request I put before him that he should get some account of the American scheme and in the early future have a White Paper issued about it?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I communicated with America to meet the wishes of my right hon. Friend and other Members of the House with a view to placing in the Library some account of the debates there, which, I think, will give a fairly good picture of what has happened there.

Sir W. Davison: What is the insuperable difficulty of putting into force so desirable, and so much desired, a reform; and is my right hon. Friend aware that these payments have often to be made by men who are receiving reduced wages and are sometimes out of employment, and that it is a very difficult position in which they are placed? Surely, if America is able to make the necessary arrangements, it is possible for us to deal with the matter in a similar way.

Mr. Kirby: Why is it necessary to have this long consideration of this matter, bearing in mind the fact that a scheme

was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman which is very acceptable to workers and employers alike at least 12 months ago?

Sir K. Wood: As I stated in this House, I have kept in close touch with the Trades Union Congress and employers on this matter, and up to some short time ago there was no plan which was really regarded as acceptable and fair. And I would point out the difficulties that have been shown in other countries which have endeavoured to adopt this scheme. So far as the difficulties in the matter are concerned, which I hope it may be possible to overcome, I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that the whole of the Civil Service has this in operation now, and why should it be in operation for the Civil Service and cannot be put into operation for the shipyard workers, where the men are heavily hit?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the White Paper. I will send him a copy.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that the major difficulty arises out of the proposal to cancel 12 months' liability to tax?

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a fact that you can never collect two years' tax in one year? Is it not much better to make a sacrifice and put things straight?

Sir A. Maitland: In view of the general interest in this question inside the House and outside, and its great importance not only to industry but to workmen themselves, will my right hon. Friend expedite the conclusions of the Treasury as early as possible and not pay too much regard to conditions in America but to the effect which the present tax administration is having in this country?

Sir K. Wood: I certainly will, but I think my hon. Friend will be the first to have regard to the many difficulties arising in connection with this matter.

Food Subsidies

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the current prices for the quartern loaf, the pound of sugar and the stone of potatoes, respectively; and what would be the prices of these commodities apart from Government subsidy?

Sir K. Wood: The current price of a quartern loaf is 9d., a pound of sugar 3d. and a stone of potatoes 1s. 1½d.; the prices of these commodities apart from the subsidies would be 11d., 5⅓d. and 1s. 8½d. respectively.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the result of the Government's policy in stabilising wages by granting subsidies to secure a reduction in the current prices of staple foods; and the present percentage increase in the cost-of-living index and in the wage index, respectively?

Sir K. Wood: As I stated in the Budget speech, the stabilisation policy and the wages policy set out in the White Paper of July, 1941, are complementary, and while there is still need for vigilance, the Government regard both as having been successful. At the end of April, 1943, the cost-of-living index had increased by 28 per cent. over the level of September, 1939, and at the same date the estimated average level of full-time weekly rates of wages was 35–36 per cent. above that of September, 1939. Included in this estimate is the effect of the special adjustments of rates in agriculture, merchant shipping and certain other industries.

Sir W. Davison: Would it not be desirable, having regard to the policy of the Government, to fix a ceiling of some kind and to give increases of wages in proportion to increases in the cost-of-living?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper which has been issued on this matter, which remains the policy of the Government.

Civil Service Pensions

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many retired civil servants are affected in a similar manner to retired officers of the Armed Forces by the Order of 1934 stabilising pensions at 9– per cent. below the basic rates; and what would be the cost of restoring to them the original basic rates of 1919?

Sir K. Wood: Civil Service pensions are not calculated in the same way as the retired pay of officers of the Armed Forces, and there are no basic rates of 1919 to which they could be restored.

Export Trade (Cash Reserves)

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance to this country of its export trade, the almost total loss of such business during the war and the efforts that will be needed to recover it after the war, he will consider granting to firms specially interested in export trade facilities to make now progressive cash reserves to be applied after the war solely to the development of export business, on the understanding that, in the meantime, such funds are lent to the Government?

Sir K. Wood: I am not clear what facilities my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he is suggesting the grant of special taxation relief, I would refer him to the Debate on 14th May, 1942 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 379, No. 66, cols. 1913–1931) in Committee on the Finance Bill of last year on a new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers).

Mr. Hannah: On account of the great interest of the Chancellor's answer and the supreme importance of the whole matter to the trade of the country, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question again on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

War Damage Commission (Cost)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost of the War Damage Commission from its inception to the last accounting period; and from what source do the funds come to meet this cost?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 56 of the War Damage Act, 1941, which requires an annual statement of payments and receipts to be laid before Parliament on or before 30th November each year, and ask him to await the publication of this statutory statement. In accordance with Section 54 of the Act, payments are met out of moneys provided by Parliament, while contributions received by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are paid into the Exchequer.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the statement which the Chancellor has referred to identify the actual cost of the War Damage Commissioner, his staff, offices and so forth, quite independent of the revenue arising from war contributions?

Sir K. Wood: I will take that into account in considering the statement to be made.

Bank of England (Note Issue, Profits)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of profits made by the Bank of England on the note issue and paid to the Treasury under Section VI (1) of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, for the last accounting period?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 4th May, 1943, to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give details of the nature of the agreement between the Bank of England and the Treasury which is adopted in ascertaining the amount of profits arising annually in the issue Department of the Bank of England, as provided for in Section VI (2) of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The agreed arrangements provide that income received (including adjustments of interest or discount) in respect of securities held in the Issue Department shall be credited to the Note Issue Income Account kept at the Bank of England.

The following are the principal charges which are then debited to the Account:

(a) The current expenses of the Department.
(b) In the case of stocks standing above the redemption value a proportionate write-drown on each Dividend day of the excess book value.
(c) The value of notes presented after having been written off.
(d) Composition paid by the Bank of England under the Bank Charter Act, 1844, and the Bankers' Composition Act, 1856, to other bankers in consideration of the discontinuance of the issue of notes by those bankers.

A working balance is retained on the Income Account and the remainder paid monthly to the Exchange Equalisation

Account under Section 3 of the Currency and Banknotes Act, 1939.

Northern Ireland Banknotes (Cashing)

Sir Hugh O'Neill: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the new regulations about the cashing of Scottish banknotes in England will apply to Northern Ireland banknotes?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I am glad to announce that the clearing Banks have agreed to extend to banknotes issued in Northern Ireland the arrangements now applying to Scottish banknotes and to make no charge on the acceptance of Northern Ireland banknotes at any of their branches.

Sir H. O'Neill: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, can he also say whether this arrangement will apply in respect of both Scottish and Northern Ireland cheques?

Mr. Assheton: I should like to have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY ACCIDENT, LANARKSHIRE

Lord Dunglass: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister for Fuel and Power whether he has any information respecting the accident which occurred at Kennox No. 7 Colliery, Lanarkshire, on Saturday, 30th May, when three men lost their lives?

Major Lloyd George: An inrush of water occurred at Kennox No. 7 Colliery, Lanarkshire, on 30th May, and of the 12 men who were working in the district affected, nine escaped but three were cut off. Pumps were got to work as speedily as possible, and as soon as the water had been lowered sufficiently rescue operations were started, but these were impeded and delayed by heavy falls and much black damp and had to be abandoned. The bodies of the three men were recovered on 20th June. The Inspectors of Mines have already started to make the fullest investigation possible, both into the cause of this accident and to see what precautions can be taken to guard against any similar accident in the future. Meanwhile, I am sure the House will wish me to express its admiration of the gallant attempts at


rescue and its sympathy with the relatives and friends of the men who have lost their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN

Commander Redvers Michael Prior, D.S.O., D.S.C., R.N., for the Borough of Birmingham (Aston Division).

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is something like three months since proposals for the reform of the Foreign Service as set out in Command Paper 6420 were debated in this House and another place and were generally approved. Following these Debates, a draft Order in Council was prepared for submission to His Majesty, creating a new combined Foreign Service, and this Order in Council was approved on 20th May last. I am now asking the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill which implements those parts of the Command Paper which require legislation for their implementation. The House will remember that the proposals in the White Paper were very wide in their scope. They will remember that they dealt not only with the amalgamation of the Services and with the question of superannuation, a matter in which my right hon. Friend has at the moment only very limited powers. The proposals in the White Paper dealt also with the question of recruitment, training, the regrading of posts, and many other matters. The House will remember those proposals and will observe that the Bill is nothing like so wide in its scope as the White Paper was. That does not mean—and I would like to emphasise this point—that the proposals in the White Paper have been so whittled down that nothing remains except what is in the Bill. It is simply that the Bill deals only with those parts of the proposals which require legislation. The wider proposals in the White Paper do not require legislation at all.
The Bill seeks in the main to do four things. Most important, it seeks to implement paragraph 5 of the White Paper, which would give my right hon. Friend powers, which he does not have at the moment, to retire on pension below the age of 60 members of the Foreign Service when it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so. Those powers will be found in Clause 2. I will revert to Clause 2 in a few minutes. In

the meantime I will endeavour to explain to the House what it is the Bill purports to do. Clauses 1 and 6 and the Schedule deal with Amendments which are necessary to existing Acts of Parliament following upon the amalgamation of the three previously existing Services which are now part of the combined Foreign Service. In the main they are, as it were, drafting Amendments consequential upon the amalgamation, and I do not think the House will want to be worried with details of them. Clause 1 (2), however, takes the opportunity to correct a small error in the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Act, 1929, an error which, so far as I know, has only caused trouble in one instance. It was not a very important mistake, but the opportunity is now being taken to correct it. A very careful scrutiny has been made of existing Acts of Parliament to ensure that nothing in those Acts in any way contradicts or interferes with the proposed amalgamation of the Services which has in fact already taken place. It is, however, a fact that even old Homer sometimes nods, and it is possible, though it is unlikely in the highest degree, that Parliamentary counsel has been caught napping in this matter. Provision is accordingly made in Clause 6 to ensure that, if it becomes necessary in the future to amend some existing Act of Parliament which has slipped our notice now, that Amendment may be made by means of Order in Council. And lest we should incur the well-merited censure of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and others of my hon. Friends, it is provided that any such draft Order in Council will need an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Clause 3 is an important one. It provides that where a member of the Foreign Service has been recalled from his post as a result of circumstances arising out of the war, and is serving in the Government service but at a lower salary than that which he previously enjoyed, he shall be in a position for the purposes of superannuation and pension as if he had never left his old post and was still serving at the old rate of pay. I hope the House will agree that this is a perfectly fair provision.
Clause 4 deals with the old China Consular Service. Under the Super-


annuation Act, 1935, members of that Service were given the privilege of retiring at the age of 55 instead of 60, and this Clause ensures that they retain that privilege in the light of the facts, first, that they will now have to do diplomatic as well as consular work and, secondly, that some new posts have been created in the China Consular area. I ought perhaps to add that it was part of the provisions of the Act of 1935 that they only qualified for retirement at 55 instead of 60 if they served in certain designated posts, which were called China Service posts, and these posts have now been increased. The third fact that is taken account of in Clause 4 is that many members of the China Consular Service are in exactly the same position as other members of the Foreign Service who have been recalled owing to the exigencies of the war and are serving in other capacities to-day. Here again I hope the House will feel that these proposals are not unreasonable.
I have given an outline of the four main purposes of the Bill. They are, first of all, to secure Amendments of existing Acts of Parliament so that the structure of those Acts of Parliament fits in with the amalgamation of the Services; secondly, to preserve to members of the Foreign Service who have been recalled as a result of the war their existing pension rights; thirdly, to preserve to members of the China Consular Service their right to retire at 55 instead of 60; and, finally, to give power to my right hon. Friend to retire on pension those members of the Foreign Service who have given valuable service in the past but who are not quite good enough to fill the highest posts. When the Foreign Service reforms were debated on 18th March I gave the House the reasons for which my right hon. Friend needed further powers of retirement on pension, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I recapitulate them. However carefully a man may be selected for the Foreign Service, and however full and careful his training may be, it is impossible to guarantee that he will in every case fulfil his early promise and that he will always be fitted, as he proceeds in his career, to fill positions of the highest responsibility.
At the present time, as the House knows, the powers of my right hon. Friend in this matter are extremely

limited. I think he has certain powers of retirement on pension under the Act of 1935. He has power under that Act to retire on pension the head of a Mission—and only the head of a Mission—who becomes persona non grata to the Government to which he is accredited. I take that to mean, in translation, that the Foreign Secretary can retire on pension the head of a Mission who has made himself so much disliked in his post that it is impossible to retain him there. But apart from that, my right hon. Friend has no power in the matter whatever. In those circumstances, any Foreign Secretary has been compelled to fall back upon a solution which is not a solution at all. In those circumstances all that is left to my right hon. Friend to do is to scratch his head and try to think of what post is least important to which such a man can be sent—a man who has committed no crime or grievous error for which he can be dismissed the service, a man who has given many years of devoted service to the State but a man who, for all that, is not able or not qualified to fill the highest posts. The solution of sending such a man to a post of small importance has never been a good one, it is not a good one to-day, and when the war is over it would be a fatal one, because when the war comes to an end, there will be none of our Missions abroad which will be of small importance.
It is necessary, therefore, to find some other solution. Of course, theoretically my right hon. Friend has a solution now. Theoretically he can pitch such a man out of the Service and throw him on the street without a penny to his name. But we must face facts as they are, and we must take my right hon. Friend as we find him. He is not of that calibre. And I must say that, looking round the House, I do not see anyone who is likely to succeed him who would be of tougher metal in that particular respect. This Clause 2 of the Bill therefore does give him in practice, a power which my right hon. Friend has always had in theory, to retire on pension a member of the Service who is not just good enough to fill the highest posts. As I explained in the earlier Debate, this is not really giving any new power to my right hon. Friend that he or any successor of his can use tyrannically. My right hon. Friend has the power to-day to put a man


on the shelf, to place him en disponibilité as the phrase goes, and this Bill gives him only the power to retire such a man on a pension on which he may be able to live.
The Bill, however, does disturb the expectation which a member of the Foreign Service at present has, that if his health remains good, if he has no serious illness which unfits him for the Service and if he commits no grievous fault which would merit dismissal from the Service, he can expect to remain a member of the Service until he is 60 years of age. The Bill changes that. The Bill provides that he can be retired before he reaches the age of 60. In other words, the conditions of employment have been materially and adversely affected by the unilateral action of the employer. In those circumstances it is proposed in the Bill that certain compensation should be made to the man who loses his expectation of employment. It is proposed that the pension granted to him on his retirement should be at a slightly higher rate than the pension to which he would be entitled, if he were retired under the existing Superannuation Acts.
I will try to explain to the House the measure of this increase, which is not a very big one. At present under the Superannuation Acts a man on retirement receives as yearly pension 1/80th part of his retiring salary for every year's service, and he receives, in addition to that pension, a lump-sum payment. The retiring pension and the lump-sum payment are subject to certain maxima. These are that the pension shall not exceed one-half the retiring salary and the lump-sum payment shall not exceed one-and-a-half year's pay. Under the Bill, those maxima are retained, but within them certain modifications are proposed. It is proposed that the Foreign Secretary shall have power to increase the pension by £100 a year above the rate laid down in the Superannuation Acts and to increase the lump-sum payment by £300 above the payment laid down in those Acts. The limits of £100 in the case of the annual pension of £300 in the case of the lump sum, are qualified, however, by the fact that the Foreign Secretary is allowed to make additional payments above the £100 in the one case, and the £300 in the

other, to bring up the pension, if necessary, to the rate of £300 a year and to bring up the lump sum, if necessary, to the figure of £900.
I will explain to the House briefly how that is to operate by taking two different cases. I take first the case of a man who has had 20 years' service in the Foreign Service and whose salary is £1,200 a year. Under the Superannuation Acts he would be entitled to £300 a year pension and £900 lump sum. Under this proposal he would get £400 a year pension and £1,200 lump sum. In other words, the pension would be put up by £100 and the lump sum by £300, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. The other case is that of a man who has had 16 years' service in the Foreign Service and whose salary is £900 a year. Under the Superannuation Acts he would be entitled to £ year pension and, I think, £540 lump sum payment. Under the Bill he would get £300 a year pension and £ lump sum; that is to say, his pension would be increased by £120 instead of by £100 and the lump-sum payment by more than the £300 laid down in the Bill.

Mr. Leach: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the proposal which he is now outlining will cover the case of an officer who has to retire on the ground of ill-health before he has completed the full period of service?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, this proposal would not cover such a case. The increase in the pension and the lump sum which is proposed for the officer who is about to be retired because he is not fitted for the highest posts, is being given because the conditions of his employment are being materially worsened by the action proposed under the Bill. If it were not for this Bill, he would know when he entered the Service that he could go on until he reached the age of 60 and that unless he became seriously ill or unless he committed some serious fault, he would be safe for life. Under this Bill, my right hon. Friend will have the power to retire him on pension before he reaches the age of 60. The same considerations do not apply in the case of a man who is pensioned because of ill-health, because he knew when he went into the Service that that was one of the conditions of his service. I do not think I need detain the


House any longer to explain the provisions of the Bill. I would only remind the House that it is a temporary war-time Measure.

Earl Winterton: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question? I do so with some hesitation, because we appreciate the care with which he has explained the Bill. Is not the use of the phrase "not quite first class" unfortunate? Is there not a real analogy between this and the other Services. In the Army and Navy, for instance, if there are more candidates available for a post than there are vacancies, the best candidates are selected, and the others are rejected. I would ask my right hon. Friend to make that point clear.

Mr. Law: I am grateful to my noble Friend for his interjection. He has put the point extremely well and more clearly than I was able to do. It is the purpose of the Bill, not to retire second-class people, but to retire people when the competition for the highest posts becomes so keen, as I hope it will become, that it is impossible to fit every candidate into those posts. I was saying that this Bill is intended only as a temporary and wartime Measure. As was indicated in the White Paper which was presented three months ago, it is to be followed after the war by a more far-reaching Bill consolidating the whole pensions system in the Foreign Service. In the meantime, I would assure the House that in the view of my right hon. Friend it is very necessary that we should have this Bill now, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Creech Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has very lucidly stated the limited purpose of the Bill, and we have little cause for criticism of the proposals embodied in it. The House has had the opportunity comparatively recently of discussing the comprehensive proposals for reform stated in the White Paper, and the House endorsed those proposals in it which are now embodied in this Bill. All of us accept the view, I think, that unification of the Foreign Service, including the Consular Service, must take place, and in the post-war period, when the great work of reconstruction goes on in all parts of the world, and when diplomacy and the activities of our re-

presentatives abroad will matter very much, it is important that the Service should be put in order, greater efficiency secured and the proposals now before the House adopted as soon as possible. I am sure that all of us will welcome the greater prospects which will be opened out to younger, more energetic and more live men as the result of the adoption of these suggestions. It will give the Secretary of State the opportunity to retire from the Service those men who are not perhaps now sufficiently competent to pull their weight and men who fall short of the calibre which is required for the efficient discharge of their duties. Indeed, the Secretary of State has admitted his present difficulties, and the Under-Secretary has underlined them. In the White Paper he said that he:
has not been free, in practice, to move a man from a Mission abroad to a post in the Foreign Office without consideration of the effect which such a transfer might have on the individual concerned. The efficiency of the Service has undoubtedly suffered in consequence
not only in that direction but in others, and the freedom of the Secretary of State to secure the maximum efficiency has been impeded. The duty of removing men from the Service is an unpleasant and disagreeable one. Those of us who have been privileged on occasions to meet members of the Service serving abroad are conscious that there are men of not quite the quality which we would like to see in the Service and large numbers of younger men of drive and energy, enterprise and imagination whose passage in the Service ought not to be blocked by what deadwood there might be in the way. That was my own observation a few months ago during my visit to America. All over the Continent one discovered extraordinarily able young men filling consular posts and discharging their responsibilities with great skill and a high standard of efficiency. Therfore, one hopes that the purpose which the Secretary of State has in mind will be met by this Bill and that he will speedily and purposefully apply the changes which we all know to be necessary to increase the efficiency of the Service.
I am a little doubtful whether the terms of the Bill are not too narrowly drafted. The Under-Secretary just now referred to the fact that only certain grades are involved in the Bill—first secretaries and upwards. I do not want to see anything


in the nature of a general purge of the Service, but I would hope that consideration might be given to the inclusion within the scope of the Bill of classes which are inferior to those which are included, in order that promotion may be more rapid and that the Service may have the advantage of younger and more go-ahead men who will be available.
I assume from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the right to retire is one that will be imposed by the Secretary of State and that the initiative cannot come from the man himself. That is important; otherwise a premium will be put on inefficiency. People will take advantage of the facilities this Bill provides and of a practice, which has been rare in the public service of this country, of men being encouraged because of their contacts and activities to seek prospects outside the Service while they are already in it. I think that would be most unfortunate.
There is one point I would like to make in regard to the initiative which can be taken by the Secretary of State. It does often happen that men with very great qualities, men of great initiative and enterprise, do not always fit well into a team. They are not too conforming, they are not exactly "Yes-men." Nevertheless, they are men of great ability, but they may, on occasions, be singled out as misfits in a Service because they are not too accommodating in their views and their activities in the Missions or the places to which they go. As the recommendations are likely to be made to the Secretary of State through men who, possibly, have grown somewhat complacent, somewhat conforming, I hope it will not happen that the men singled out for retirement are just those who have a little more go and a little more initiative but who show themselves a little less conforming than other members of the Service. I do not want men to be penalised largely because they are not sufficiently complacent or conforming with the rules of the Service.
With the general terms of the Bill we find ourselves, I think, in agreement. It seems to me that the Bill is fair and reasonable. Obviously one should be generous. Large numbers of these men will not have had the opportunity of living in this country or building up homes. The cost of transfer home on retirement is

likely to be heavy, and therefore there is a case to be made out for the provisions of the Bill to operate for men who have given good service to the State. On this side of the House we are always happy to note how ready the House is to meet generously the special problems of those who have given generous service to the State, and we would wish that the same generosity should operate towards the toilers in industry generally, who make an equally necessary contribution to the life of the State, but in another way.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the Secretary of State. Are we to assume that in all cases the initiative will have to be taken by the Secretary of State in the event of retirement? The Under-Secretary has already answered a question as to persons who suffer a breakdown in health. Will he also tell me why it is that only grades of the status of first secretary and upwards can be dealt with under this Bill? Would it not be wise to make provision so that any lower class grade men equally unsatisfactory do not block the way of younger people coming up? In paragraph 30 of the White Paper there is a reference, I believe, to some provision being made for subordinate branches of the Service, but I am not clear as to the implications of it. Again, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Bill is purely a war Measure and is limited in its application. I should like it to be made clear whether it is proposed that the Bill should lapse with the conclusion of the war. Is it really hoped that these far-reaching changes can be carried through in so short a time, and will it not happen that the Minister will require these powers for some considerable time after the war is over? Further, can we now satisfy ourselves that these proposals do cover all sections of the new Foreign Service? Will there be left any non-pensionable officers or officials blocking the way with whom the Secretary of State has no power to deal? I should like to be sure that the provisions of the Bill are as comprehensive as they need to be in order to achieve the changes which we are all anxious should be brought about.
The Secretary of State is anxious to have an adequate instrument to make the Service effective. He points out that the reforms are not likely to involve the country in very much additional expense, and in any case it is a small price to pay for a thoroughly efficient Foreign Service.


With those views we agree, and therefore it will be our intention to assist the passage of the Bill through this House as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I am told that the late Provost of Eton used to do "The Times" crossword puzzle whilst boiling his breakfast egg, and as a great many Members wish to speak I will try to compress my remarks into an equally brief space of time. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) said the object of this Bill was to ensure greater efficiency, and I am certain that all would agree that we can only ensure greater efficiency if we draw the best brains into the Service. We can only do this by giving adequate remuneration; otherwise we shall find men of ability seeking a livelihood in industry or commerce. Looking at the exchequer of the Foreign and Consular Services this year I see we spend £742,000 on the Foreign Service and £1,000,000 on the Consular Service. I do not believe that these sums can in any way be called excessive, especially when we look to the future. We must realise that the Foreign Service of the future will be passing from a comparatively rich Service to a poor Service, that in future our diplomats abroad will not in every case be able to rely upon private incomes, and that it may be possible to enter the British Embassy in Washington or in Moscow in 1965 and find there as Ambassador not a man formerly at Winchester or Eton but one who has worked his way up from a secondary school in Oldham, Huddersfield, or Glasgow.
Looking at the pay of our representatives overseas, it falls roughly under three heads: First of all, the salary, which is subject to Income Tax in this country; secondly, Foreign Service allowance or frais as it is known to the heads of our Missions; and, lastly, rent allowance. I believe that the heads of our Missions abroad are well-looked after financially, but I am not so satisfied about those in the lower ranks of the Service. A young man of ability and ambition arrives in a foreign capital. He wishes to impress his chief, to make valuable contacts, and I am not certain that he has adequate financial remuneration to enable him to carry on that work efficiently. I was likewise impressed by the fact that many members of the Foreign Service who have families to support, especially children to

educate, do have a difficult time financially. I hope that it will be possible in the future to grant something like a marriage allowance for members of the Foreign Service. Thirdly, and this is a very genuine grievance, while I understand the Office of Works finds furniture for embassies and legations, in many cases the Minister or Ambassador has to provide his own linen, his own cooking utensils and whatever else is desirable. I am told that if, for instance, a Minister is transferred from Teheran to Buenos Aires the State pays for the transport of his goods but that when he arrives he may find himself with a large embassy, far larger than he was used to, and will have to provide out of his own pocket for cooking utensils, silver, etc. I think it is undignified that an ambassador should be engaged in a scramble for saucepans, and I feel that the State should make itself responsible for all furnishings in embassies and legations.
There is one other point in conclusion, namely the question of numbers. I believe it is vitally important that the members of embassies and legations overseas should not remain all the time in the capital cities but should visit the great provincial cities as much as possible. I am told that should our Ambassador in Washington decide to send a junior member of his staff on an investigation, say to Oklahoma he is able to claim travelling expenses and his keep, but what usually happens is that owing to the shortage of staff in the embassies these junior members are sitting 12 hours a day at their desks. Therefore, I regard it as vitally important that our Foreign Service should have increased numbers, and particularly is this true of the Consular Service. I am told there are countless cases where our consuls overseas are never able to take as much as one day's leave, that they are constantly badgered, and with work continually on their hands, and I am certain that efficiency suffers in consequence. These are principally the points I wish to make: Consideration of higher pay for the lower ranks of our Foreign Service, the possibility of marriage allowances, the possibility that the State should find all furnishings for embassies, and, lastly, that we should consider increased numbers. I believe we always have to pay for quality. It is as true of this as of anything else, that you cannot buy a Cartier watch at Woolworth prices.

Sir Granville Gibson: Three months ago the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a splendid speech. For clarity of expression and lucidity of explanation I have seldom heard a better speech in this House, and the Foreign Secretary, who was absent at that time in the United States, need have had no fear as to what would happen regarding the explanation of these proposals, part of which are finding expression in the Bill before us to-day. They have interested industrialists and have been considered by various chambers of commerce throughout the country, and I am very glad to tell the Foreign Secretary that without exception these proposals and the powers in the Bill have had the very warmest approval throughout the length and breadth of the country.
The Under-Secretary started to-day by saying that the Bill would give powers to the Foreign Secretary to retire men who did not prove to be efficient for the higher posts, those who had proved failures. The noble Lord interrupted and asked whether the Under-Secretary of State was not doing these men rather an injustice. The Under-Secretary replied that there were many applicants for these posts and that men who were suitable had to be selected. In that connection he went back on what he had said in the earlier part of his speech, while in the proposals made three months ago he said that the Bill would give power to the Foreign Secretary to retire men who had proved unsuited to positions of higher responsibility and for whom other employment could not be found. What the Under-Secretary said in the beginning of his speech, and not what he said in reply to the noble Lord, is what is embodied in the Bill.
In his speech of three months ago he said that the Foreign Office was not inefficient and that times had changed. There is no doubt about this, and the services required from His Majesty's Missions abroad have altered enormously during the last 25 years. It is a matter of great credit to the Foreign Secretary that he has realised this fact. As the right hon. Gentleman said just now, the men who are going out to posts in various parts of the world should have proper remuneration for the job they are doing. Many of them have not had it in the past. In the old days His Majesty's Missions abroad were concerned mainly with high policy and

with political matters requiring astuteness, secrecy and, sometimes, intrigue. Speaking as an industrialist, my view is that His Majesty's Missions abroad must in future be the handmaidens of commerce and industry, as well as engaged in maintaining good relationships with foreign countries. The Foreign Secretary is one of the first to recognise the fact that changes have come over the whole field of foreign diplomacy and that the men who are sent out to our foreign Missions must not only be interested in diplomacy and strategy but must know something about trade, industry and commerce.
When I have gone into foreign countries I have made very little use of our foreign Missions as a business man, but just before Hitler walked into Poland in 1939 I was in touch with our foreign Mission there, and I received very valuable assistance from that commercial consul. Generally speaking, business men do not make use of our foreign Missions. That may partly be their fault, but to a great extent it is the fault of the members of our Missions. They have not understood business and commerce sufficiently well in the past, and they have not sufficiently advertised their wares or their ability to meet the requirements of those who were desirous of winning foreign trade. In South American countries, of which I have had some experience, the organisation of some of our Missions is very inadequate and not very helpful to trade interests. Our Foreign Minister appears to be the first who has realised that the old basis of such Missions as to diplomacy and as the special preserve of the sons of families of high social status and the hallmark of social connection is passing away, and that in the future a not less important sphere of usefulness opens before them. The Foreign Minister has also showed himself aware of the changed necessities of life. The proposed reform is a step in the right direction and will be approved by industrial interests throughout the whole of the country.
The conditions in which our Diplomatic Service grew up no longer exist in international affairs. In the future, many countries will loom much larger in commerce and industry than at any time in the past. Time after time when I was in South America I came across men working there who were palpably inefficient. It seemed to some of us that South America


was the home for worn out and inefficient men from the Diplomatic Service, as though the Foreign Office said, when they had a man who had proved himself a failure, "Send him to South America."

Mr. Pickthorn: Or put him into business.

Sir G. Gibson: I also came across cases where posts had been given to men who had no knowledge of Spanish or Portuguese.

Sir Malcolm Robertson: Does not the same apply to business in South America?

Sir G. Gibson: Yes, it does.

Sir M. Robertson: Very largely.

Sir G. Gibson: I hope that, as a result of this discussion, there will be an entirely different state of affairs in the future, from the point of view of industry as well as of the Foreign Office. Some of the men whom we sent there did not understand the language and had no knowledge of South American affairs. In the case of the U.S.A. and Germany, while they trained their men for specific spheres of usefulness, they usually selected them from commercial circles. In the United States, the German and Italian Missions were invariably well staffed—particularly the German Mission. Since 1939, United States manufacturers have discovered that 1,800 of their agents in South America were Italian or German—the best agents, as it were. I am anxious that in the future the Foreign Department should see to it that we send men out to various countries of the world equipped, as it was intended they should be in the proposals outlined three months ago by the Under-Secretary of State, with a knowledge of the languages and of the trade and industries of the countries to which they are accredited. In some places in South American countries we suffer seriously in our Missions from lack of personnel. In Equador, I understand, the sole Secretary of the Legation was an Equadorian. I would ask whether this was in keeping with the dignity of His Majesty's Missions abroad.
I welcome the Bill. I have come across very finely equipped commercial consuls in South American countries, but they had no opportunity of rising above the commercial consul scale, prior to this

Bill. They were in a blind-alley occupation. These men have not been properly paid, and there is no wonder that they have wanted to get out of the Service and into industry. It is no use expecting to get first-class men on third-class wages, although I know there are lots of men who have first-class wages and give third-class service. Men who are really efficient at their job, and know it and can do it, have a right to be properly paid for the work that they are doing.
Another matter is in regard to the British Income Tax which is paid abroad by members of our Missions. The Finance Bill allows freedom from Income Tax in accordance with the extra cost of living outside the United Kingdom to enable a person to perform his duties, but it is difficult for men who have to face increased costs of living in those countries and at the same time a heavy increase in Income Tax in this country. Sometimes a great amount of entertaining should be done, but the allowances are so meagre that our men cannot afford the opportunity to do the right amount of entertaining which is so necessary in connection with our Missions abroad. I was glad at the proposal outlined by the Under-Secretary of State that, with the amalgamation of these three Services, the men are to be trained not only in diplomacy but in industry and commerce. Those proposals are on the right lines, and they will give to commercial and diplomatic consuls the opportunity of rising to ambassadorial rank. The Foreign Office will also have the opportunity of winning into the higher ranks and of keeping men who are efficient and who otherwise might have been kept in the lower grades, such as that of commercial consuls.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the fact that the proposals would mean that, when retiring, these men could not go back to the poverty line. Even though a man has proved himself somewhat inefficient in his work, I should be sorry to see him treated in that way. Even though men have not proved as efficient as we hoped, they have at any rate given us their best, and they deserve something more than being kept just above the poverty line. I am glad that the expression of views by the Under-Secretary three months ago has not been carried out in the Bill, which deals much more generously with those people. I think the Bill will meet with the approval of


all people in this country who are interested in the export trade. I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary to consider bringing in a Bill after the war to deal with this matter, giving a man an opportunity of learning languages, of having a year at home and perhaps six months in industry and six months in the Foreign Service. If the war lasts five years, it will take nearly five years to bring in a comprehensive scheme to deal with the whole Civil Service on the lines of the proposals set out in the White Paper. We must not wait too long, and I hope the Foreign Secretary will keep it very alertly before his mind, because our competitors will be on the job, waiting for foreign trade immediately the war is over. They will not wait year after year to go after the trade.
There is another question I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary. Why should the Board of Trade and the Department of Overseas Trade be represented on the Appointments Board only when appointments to the commercial and diplomatic posts are under consideration? Why should they not be present and take part in all the appointments, seeing that these three Services are amalgamated into one great Service? I cannot understand why they should only be called into consultation when the highest appointments are being made.
In conclusion, with regard to the visits abroad to our various Missions of representatives from the Foreign Office to see that they are efficiently doing their work, over and over again I have found, on going abroad on business, that unless one keeps pegging at one's agents abroad and keeps them up to concert pitch, gingering them up a little, they get slack in their work. In one South American country there was one of our Ambassadors two or three years ago who was told by one of my friends that he was going the following day to the industrial centre of that country. The Ambassador said, "I have never been there." It was only 200 miles away from the capital of the country. We do not want that kind of thing. That is not service, that the Ambassador had never even visited the industrial centre of that country. Therefore our people who go out from here visiting them from time  time should look into these matters and ginger them up, keep them up to their

job. It is the only way you get the fullest protection and highest efficiency from your agents abroad, and I suppose that applies in the Foreign Office as in industry and commerce. I wish the Foreign Secretary every support I can possibly afford him and which I hope the House will afford him in this great work which he has commenced. In the future there may be tremendous issues in this matter, and this reorganisation of the Foreign Service may play an important part in the future prosperity of this country, greater than any of us might dream at the moment. The step which the Foreign Secretary has taken is one in the right direction in order that after the war we may still not only obtain but retain our pre-eminent place among the nations of the earth.

Mr. Mander: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his return to this country and on the admirable work which from all accounts he has been doing on the other side of the Atlantic. He put forward once again the views of the Government in a very clear manner to-day. This Bill follows as a necessary consequence of the Debate which took place in March. I am very glad there is to be no further delay. That has already been considerable since the Minister announced his proposals rather more than 18 months ago. This Bill represents a necessary and an excellent but small advance. It is, of course, without prejudice to the much larger question which may not be touched upon in this Debate, and which I will describe in one sentence. That is, the large reform which involves the whole re-organisation of the machinery which is responsible for foreign affairs, which would include the coordination in some form under one Minister of not only the work of the Foreign Office but some of that of the Ministry of Information, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Economic Warfare and also some questions of finance. Quite clearly at some stage it will be necessary, in the new age, for concentration to be entered into in this connection. One cannot do more than mention it as a matter of the utmost importance for the conduct of foreign affairs.
I am glad the decision has been taken to amalgamate the three different branches of the Foreign Service. Perhaps I, who


have given more trouble than any other Member of this House to the officials of the Foreign Office in past years through the large number of Questions which I have felt necessary in the public interest to put to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, may pay a tribute to the Foreign Office and its staff for the admirable manner in which I know they carry out their duties within the scope of their powers and on the basis of the way that things have been done up to the present time. They are a most devoted and conscientious band, and I am sure they deserve very well indeed of the country. They have done their very best. They are the agents, not makers, of policy whether here or representing us in other parts of the world. It is the Minister in the Government who makes the policy. They do their best to pass it over to other Countries.
My right hon. Friend now recognises that we have passed into a more democratic age, that there should be a wider scope for recruitment. Obviously the world is narrowing, and the introduction of the wireless and aeroplanes, and the way that Ministers and heads of Governments now have of themselves meeting and discussing questions very often has had a great effect. This happened at the League of Nations, and I imagine and hope it will be continued in future as it has been during this war. All these things change the outlook and the status of the foreign representative abroad. The unification of the three branches of the Service, is, I am sure, long overdue. The difference of status which has existed has been quite absurd, in some instances, in the past. I shall not make any reflections on individuals, because during the years before the war I often used to pay visits to different parts of Europe, and I received the greatest courtesy and consideration from the representatives of the British Government wherever I went, and I am most grateful to them. But one could not help forming certain general ideas as to changes that might suitably be made, and, as I say, the difference in status was absurd. There were instances where parties were held, and owing to the different standard that was adopted the Consul was not invited to certain parties held by the Minister. That struck one as being quite a ridiculous difference.
I am bound to say I cannot help thinking that the way the Consul conducts his

business, the contact he has with the nationals of a country, is a very good standard, and I hope that the consular standard will be to a very large extent adopted as to the one to work towards rather than some of the others. It was often the case that the commercial representative was regarded as inferior in status. That should not be so. They all ought to be exactly the same. I am very glad that that is the intention in the future, because the Minister or Ambassador will very likely have to have something of the same qualities as a commercial traveller on the grandest scale. It is quite clear that there will be State purchase on a very large scale between countries, and the British representative will have to know more about it, will have to be qualified to understand what is happening in a great commercial State transaction of that kind.
The duty of a British representative abroad is to interpret over here the views of the country where he is. Often he is extremely successful, but not always. The British Council interprets Great Britain to foreign countries, and the British Ambassador should interpret foreign countries to this country. In introducing the Bill just now, my right hon. Friend said that the Foreign Secretary possessed the power at the present time—I think it was almost the only power he possessed—to pension a British representative when he had made himself Persona non grata to the country to which he was accredited. That raises a very interesting point, because there are types of cases in which it would not be the duty of a British representative to make him self popular with the country where he was our representative. I have in mind Nazi Germany before the war. It might well have been the duty of the British representative to be unpopular, and to show firmly but politely what he thought of the people with whom he was called upon to be associated. However, that is to be put right. In future the Foreign Secretary will be able to deal with all and sundry, whether they are rightly popular or rightly unpopular as the case may be.
I do hope that the Minister's representatives abroad, Ambassadors or Ministers, will feel it is their duty to get right down to the people, and not to be content with a small round of diplomatic dinners which has sometimes been the


case in the past—that is not enough—or merely to visit people who are decorative remnants of a former régime. They need to know the people who are in power and who represent the main mass of the country. They need, if possible, to know something of their language, to understand their art, their literature, to go to their theatres and not only be content with shooting and hunting, which are very agreeable pastimes in their due place. It should be their duty to see the national life from ballet to baseball. I hope our representatives in future, if a country should arise such as Nazi Germany, would know a criminal type when they saw him and say so, and report it back, and that we shall have no more back-slapping or encouraging popularity among people of a criminal type.
I wish well to these proposals of my right hon. Friend. I have the utmost confidence in his conduct of foreign affairs, and I am sure that under him this Service will rise to greater heights than it ever has before. I believe those who will come into the Foreign Service in future will serve this country loyally to the very best of their ability, and I believe too that they will be proud to serve not only their own country but the larger purposes of the United Nations, embracing, I hope in due course, though it may be a distant ideal, the whole of mankind.

Miss Ward: My right hon. Friends must be extremely pleased at the reception which the Bill has had. I should like to add my congratulations. I have only one regret: that is, that such a practical Bill, with such vision behind it, should have had to wait until the fourth year of the war. I can well believe that the proposals of this Bill would have been of very great advantage not only to the present Foreign Secretary but to past Foreign Secretaries. I have wondered why a Bill of this nature has not been introduced before. I think I know the answer. I understand that my right hon. Friend has for a considerable period been fighting behind the scenes a battle, without success, against the Treasury. I come down to saying, as I have tried to say in this House on more than one occasion, that I think it is a condemnation of our democratic system that proposals such as we are discussing to-day, which are urgently required by a responsible

Minister, should be held up by the Treasury, and that the responsible Minister has not the authority to come to the House of Commons and to ask Members to back his request against the Treasury obstruction.
I was very interested in some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr). It is quite true, in relation to the wider problems of international relationships, that these are very small points, but we know from past history that very small irritations have often had very big results. It seems to me that, in view of the position of Great Britain and the British Empire, the fact that we have to fight over tiny details, which would add considerably to the prestige of our foreign missions, is not worthy of the traditions of Great Britain. I discussed the matter with a friend of mine who is connected with the Treasury, and asked him why there has been this obstruction to these proposals. His answer was, "Well, the Foreign Secretary cannot have put up a strong enough case. That I cannot believe, unless, in the important work that the Foreign Secretary has to perform, he has not time to argue with the Treasury over domestic details. I make these comments only because I hope that some of the practical proposals that have already been commented upon by other hon. Members, with regard to the provision of sufficient funds for our foreign missions, will not in future be received grudgingly by the Treasury. I hope that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary will, without argument, get everything they want to enable them to do justice to our representation in foreign countries. When my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary introduced the discussion on the original proposals, he ventured upon a very able philosophical argument, upon which I congratulate him. He said:
A great many people believe that the Foreign Office is responsible for the formulation of foreign policy and is, in large degree, the final arbiter of peace or war. That is not the case. It may be said that our foreign policy between the two wars was mistaken. Speaking from this vantage-point of time, I would say myself that it was tragically mistaken, and I think probably all hon. Members of this House would agree with me, though the basis of their agreement might be different from mine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1943; col. 1358, Vol. 387.]
Then he went on in a very able philosophical strain, which I was very glad to


hear put across from the Treasury Bench. As the discussion has followed many unusual channels, considering the provisions of the Bill, perhaps I might say this one word. I hope that when the war is over, having regard to the speech made by my right hon. Friend, this House of Commons and the country will have the benefit of having presented to them all the documents relating to that period when, as my right hon. Friend very rightly said, our foreign policy was wrongly interpreted by the Foreign Office chiefs of that day—I take it that what he meant to say, although he did not say it quite so bluntly as I do, was that certain Foreign Secretaries in the past were not a success in interpreting the information that was provided by their Foreign Service. I want the House of Commons to be informed as to how the information, which was available from the Foreign Service, was wrongly interpreted by the political chiefs and by the Cabinet of the day. I do not want us, when we have built up a fine Foreign Service after this war, to have its work scuppered by inefficient political interpretation. I was very glad to hear the tributes which were paid to my right hon. Friends, and I heartily associate myself with those tributes; but there is a future, and I believe that this House of Commons ought to learn from the past. If we build a Foreign Service which can advance a wise policy and which can create confidence in the British effort and the British philosophy of life in those countries where the Foreign Service is representing our interests, it is deplorable that the information that is provided should be misinterpreted and misrepresented by the political chiefs.

Mr. Mander: Does my hon. Friend not realise that there were occasions when Ministers refused to listen to the expert advice tendered by the Foreign Office?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I have been listening to the hon. Lady's remarks very carefully. Perhaps we might now leave the matter as being irrelevant to the Bill.

Miss Ward: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me to make my point. I have said what I wanted to say, and I have no wish to enter into a controversy with my hon. Friend. But I hope that some day the documents will be available to us, so that we may judge.
I do not intend to raise the issue of the right of women to enter the Diploma tic Service, because I realise that that would be right outside even the Title of the Bill, but I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that this was only, so to speak, a temporary Bill. I realise that we cannot establish our right within this war period to take part in the foreign service of the future. We are grateful for the promise given by my right hon. Friend that there shall be a Committee to consider the position as soon as the war ends. I had expected that this Bill was going to be the final word, and, speaking for my women colleagues in this House, and, to a large extent, for the women of the country, I felt, that the decision was unfortunate. But as this is not to be the final word, I feel that I need not be obstreperous on that point. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friends, and I hope that this Bill will do what they wish by increasing further the efficiency of the Foreign Service.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Unlike the last three hon. Members who have spoken, I have no desire to trespass out-side the scope of the Bill; it affords ample opportunity for the exercise of such debating power as I possess, and I feel no temptation to go outside it. Before I come to the main burden of my remarks, I would like to ask a few questions on details. Has the Foreign Secretary fixed an age below which an official may not be retired? I understand that no one may be retired below the rank of first secretary, and that gives us some idea of age; but I would like to know whether he has fixed a definite age below which he will not retire anyone. My second point concerns Clause 6. I thought it a very curious Clause when I read the Bill, and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanation, As this is only a war-time Measure, and a comprehensive Bill is promised when the war ends, I hope there will be no similar Clause in that Bill, and that by that time the Parliamentary draftsmen will have discovered all the enactments which need to be amended and will have made provision in the Bill itself. I understand the difficulties under which the draftsmen work, and I think their numbers should he increased. I am making no criticism of the draftsmen, who do a difficult job very well.
My third question arises out of the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. That Report recommended the creation of Organisation and Methods Department in Government offices. I wonder whether it is proposed to set up any such department in the Foreign Office. It might easily obviate the need for the powers under which this Bill is introduced, by removing some of the inefficiencies against which this Bill is directed. Incidentally, we have noticed to-day the difficulty of describing the need for this Bill without offending the susceptibilities of the persons to be affected by it. Obviously, in the Foreign Secretary's judgment, this Bill is immediately necessary, because we are promised a comprehensive Bill to deal with the whole question after the war. I think that the members of the Foreign Service who are to be axed by the Bill should be notified as soon as possible, in order that they should not be left in suspense.
I come to the main purpose of my short speech. I am sorry to introduce a jarring note towards the end of the party. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not think that he has come back from Hot Springs into hot water. This Bill raises many anxieties in my mind. We all recognise the purposes for which it is introduced. We all know, by acquaintance or by description, persons in the Foreign Service who are ceasing to fulfil the promise of their youth. I deeply sympathise with the Foreign Secretary in his desire to retire them gracefully and without offence. But I am very apprehensive about the uses to which these powers might be put—not by the present Foreign Secretary, for I have great confidence in him, as I think have most Members in this House; but he will not always be Foreign Secretary. We are making provision for some time ahead, and I think it will be clear on reflection that these powers might be used to get rid, not of people who are ceasing to fulfil the promise of their youth or who are unfitted for the higher posts, but people who are politically inconvenient. Any Foreign Secretary would be indignant at that suggestion, and rightly so; but it is very easy for us to imagine that people with whose political opinions we disagree have a special dose of original sin or are incompetent or something of that sort, and I

would not like Foreign Secretaries to be exposed to that temptation.
The parallel drawn with the Armed Forces is misleading. As I understand it, subordinate officers of the Armed Forces, and of the police also, are retired because they do not possess after middle age the physical qualities necessary to carry out the duties of those ranks—physical qualities which are not needed in the highest posts. Considerations of that kind do not arise in the Foreign Service. The removal of a man from a very cold country to a very hot country might put some strain upon him, but there is not a great deal of physical strain involved in the normal work of the Foreign Service. But the Foreign Service does call for some qualities that can only be obtained with age and experience. It calls not only for knowledge but for judgment and for tact —qualities which are more likely to be prevalent in age than in youth. I fully agree with all the hon. Members have said about older men in the Foreign Service who are not fulfilling their jobs adequately. I recognise all that, but I do not want to go over the same ground. What I fear is, that in aiming at perfection we might escape the best.
The proper service of the State demands a large number of people who are not deterred by economic considerations from expressing their opinions fearlessly. I should deprecate very strongly the day in which members of the Foreign Service felt, through economic considerations, that they had to trim their sails to the political wind, as might possibly happen. I have been conscious in my journalistic life of many foreign correspondents who send home messages that do not really depict the true state of the countries to which they are sent but are the kind of messages they know their editors will want to receive. I hope that we shall not get that kind of thing in the Foreign Service. Hon. Members to-day have not introduced any names from recent history; I propose to follow their example, and in order to give an instance I shall have to go back a long time. I take the case of Sir James Hudson, who was our Minister in Turin before the unification by Italy. He was recalled to report in the eighteen-fifties by Lord Malmesbury. It is Certain that if Lord Malmesbury had possessed the powers given in this Bill that Hudson would have been retired on pension, but


the Foreign Secretary at that day did not possess such powers; he was allowed to go on and did most excellent work for this country and for the general peace of Europe
I do not wish to oppose this Bill. I realise the good purpose for which it is intended, but I would like to utter this warning note, that it is capable of misuse, and the best antidote against misuse is a strong warning from this House. I have said that the proper service of the State demands a large number of people who have what we on our Labour platforms call "economic security," and in recent years the economic security of large numbers of people has been undermined little by little. The valuable part that we can play in this House rests on two foundations. One is the privilege that protects us while we are speaking and the other is our irremovability between elections. It is true that the imminence of an election might possibly cause us to modify our innermost feelings, but until an election comes we can speak our minds freely. That I think is a foundation of the great service we can render to the country. The judges of the High Court have this economic security in doing their job, and it is essential to the performance of that job. The incumbents of the Church of England have it, although their bishops are continually trying to deprive them of it. The Fellows of Oxford and Cambridge colleges used to have it, but they have been deprived of it by one means or other, with certain distinctions. In the college to which the Under Secretary and I both have the honour to belong there is a subtle distinction between a Fellow, who can be deposed for immorality, and the President, who can be deposed only for gross immorality. But the economic security of Oxford and Cambridge dons has gone, and I think that there is a loss to the State in it.
I would not like to see members of the Foreign Service put in the position that, from fear of losing their jobs, they would modify their political advice in order to support the political views of the Foreign Secretary of the day. I make no plea on party grounds. It may well be, if the fears I have expressed are realised, that Socialists or quasi-Socialists in the Foreign Service would be dismissed; but it might happen equally well, if there were a Socialist Foreign Secretary, that people of other political views might be dismissed

without any intention on the part of the Foreign Secretary overstepping the bounds of decorum. These are powers which can be very dangerous. They resemble the power given to doctors under euthanasia. It might be a very great advantage—leaving aside metophysical considerations, with all respect to the hon. Lady behind me—to be able to get rid of people who are no longer fitted for the advanced years of life; but most of us will admit that these are dangerous powers to put into the hands of any doctor. They might get rid not only of the tuberculous or cancerous and so on, but of many people who were disliked for one reason or another. That is the kind of consideration that forces me to utter a word of warning on this question. These powers are even less necessary, because there are so many types of post in the Foreign Service to which a man can be sent.
The Under-Secretary has explained that after the war all posts will be important. That is true. He has also explained that all members of the Foreign Service are good, so that really his remarks cancel each other out. What is undeniable is, that while all posts are important, there is a priority among them. Washington, Paris, Moscow and Chungking, if it should remain the capital of China, will undoubtedly have a priority over other posts, and there are a very large number of extremely agreeable places of exile in the Foreign Service to which a man can be sent, without any disrespect to the countries concerned, if he is not capable of fulfilling the highest posts. I have expressed the anxieties which are in my mind. I do not wish, as I have said, to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I hope that the powers under it will be used sparingly and with discretion.

Wing-Commander James: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is having a gala day, and I wish to add my very humble meed of praise for this excellent little Bill. We had very few opportunities from these benches in the Debate on the White Paper to express our viewpoints, and as this is the Second Reading of a Bill which is really part of that White Paper, I hope that some slight latitude will be allowed to me to refer to provisions which will presumably come in later Bills although not in this Bill itself. The first point I


would like to make is that the first three paragraphs of the White Paper are altogether too apologetic. They have so understated the case for the Foreign Service as to be altogether too apologetic. The brief experience of the Foreign Service that I have been fortunate enough to have enjoyed has left me with an impression of a number of able and devoted public servants working immensely long hours, very often at great personal sacrifice, and to suggest or to allow to be suggested that the faults of our pre-war foreign policy rested on the Foreign Service and not on this House and the Cabinet is really nonsense. I go further, and I say that time has shown, possibly with one exception, that our Foreign Service is the best in the world. The only possible exception would perhaps be the Dutch, who appear to be most remarkably efficient and have a wonderful Foreign Service in all its branches, which brings me to this little point.
There are already places in which our representation is entrusted in vice-consular posts to non-British nationals. It may be possible after the war to find places where we can combine our representation with the Dutch. They are the people above all whose mental processes and habits, and whose instincts and everything else are so similar to ours that I believe that if in some places the services could be combined it would be to the benefit of our two Empires whose closer integration in future is something to which I personally look forward.
Paragraph 13 of the White Paper contains a point to which I would like to make a reference. The first sentence reads:
By facilitating the transfer to the Foreign Office of senior officers of experience, more effective interchange between posts at home and abroad will become the rule.
It may be implicit, but it should be made explicit. It should read: "to and from the Foreign Office." There is just as much disadvantage in people sitting unduly long in that office as there is in those who do not sufficiently often return to it. I very much welcome the point in paragraph 15 with regard to over usual age entrants. That, I am sure, will bring in a category of persons analogous to the valuable political Service entrants to the Indian Civil Service, which has been of

immense value out there. I am sure that this will very greatly help our Foreign Service. Paragraph 33—the admission of women—was most effectively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson) in the last Debate. There is really only one small point I would like to add to his effective condemnation of this absurdity. If you are going to admit women to the Foreign Service at all, clearly they cannot be debarred from the highest posts. If they are to reach the highest posts, what is to be done to meet the position of the derisony figure of the Ambassador's husband? I think that is reductio ad absurdum, and I hope to hear no more of that.
There is one omission from the White Paper which I, personally, very much regret and which is really the main point I want to make. Paragraph 24 of Part II relates to recruitment. Surely if there is one Service which should be an Imperial- Service, it is our Foreign Service. Why is no reference made in that paper to Dominion recruitment? I know, of course, that the Service is open to Dominion recruitment and that on the very small Dominion intake we have had so far we have had quite exceptional results. But I would like to see in the next Bill that is introduced special provision made to encourage Dominion recruitment. For example, there are certain zones which more particularly concern other sister nations of the British Commonwealth. Ought not there to be recruitment to the Foreign Service on a population basis between the self-governing Dominions? Has not Australia a particular interest in one sphere in Asia and Canada in America? Ought not we to aim at creating our Foreign Service primarily as an Imperial service? I trust that in the next Bill special steps will be taken to bring home this field to the Dominions. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I welcome this Bill; it is a triumph for the Foreign Secretary that he has been able to bring it forward. Nothing will give a better return, and I am sure the whole House applauds the Minister on this occasion and gives a welcome to this Bill.

Major Petherick: I think my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has reason to be satisfied with the way in which his Bill has


been received by the House. Indeed, the harmony is so beautiful that had I come here intending to make a hostile speech I should have burst into tears and have torn up my notes, but as it is I can join in the congratulations which have been vouchsafed to my right hon. Friend today, more particularly so as I think this is the first Bill in human memory which the Foreign Office has presented. I do not remember another one, and I asked my right hon. Friend if he did, but he does not remember one either. In the spate and orgy of legislation from which we have been suffering so long, I think the Foreign Office can congratulate itself that this small and worth-while Bill is the first that they have presented for a very long time. I listened with great interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. He did not descend—and I think rightly—too much into detail, thus living up to what is, or ought to be, the motto of his family De minimis non curat lex.
This is a somewhat technical Bill, and I do not think it is necessary to go too much into detail. None the less I wish to ask one or two questions, not in a spirit of hostility, but rather with a view to seeking information, and to make one or two suggestions. I am not very happy about one or two aspects of Clause 2. I know that superannuation can only take place from the rank of first secretary and upwards, the average age being about 34 or 35 at the present time. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether it would not be wise to take powers at any time, say in two, three, four or five years, if a man is not suitable for the Foreign Service, to ask him to retire, under pension if necessary. It seems to me that when the proposals in the Command Paper are brought into being it is quite possible that there may be a number of recruits, who come in without examination, and who are subsequently found to be unsuitable for that Service. The powers of selection will no doubt be wisely exercised, but it is quite possible that there will be some who are not really doing their job and of whom it would be thought wise that they should either leave the Service altogether or go into another branch of the Civil Service. I notice there is nothing in the Bill to provide that if the Foreign Secretary is of the opinion that a man is not very suitable for the

Foreign Service he should have power to recommend that he should be transferred to another part of the Civil Service. I think that point is worth consideration because it is possible that certain people now in the Foreign Office perhaps do not get on very well with foreigners. They may be very good administrators, on paper, and be sound and wise, but perhaps they are not particularly suitable for that Service abroad. If that is the case, would it not be advisable to take powers to recommend that such a person be transferred maybe to the Colonial Service or some other branch of the Civil Service, keeping his relative rank, his seniority and his pay? That, of course, I know could only be done by agreement with the Government Department to which it was suggested he should be transferred, but I commend that thought to my right hon. Friend.
Another point about Clause 2 disturbs me a little, namely, that with regard to the superannuation to be paid to a man who is asked to leave, due, it may or may not be, to causes over which he has no control. Maybe he is not suitable, or perhaps he does not get on with people. I do not think it is right that a man should be bribed, as it were, to leave, that lie should be offered better terms, relatively, than a man who stays in the Service. It is true that there is an upward limit to the inducement that may be offered, but it is not a question of inducement. The Secretary of State of his own volition and subject to no challenge except in this House—where he is unlikely to be challenged—can require a man to leave the Foreign Service. It is not a case of "Poor old Fred. He is a very nice fellow. He has done very well, but we cannot have him any longer. We must pay him something extra to go out." That is not what will happen. The Foreign Secretary is the absolute master, and he can require a man to retire. I do not think that it is right that an extra inducement should be given to a man when he retires. He should not be paid more to go quietly. It is to some extent putting a premium on inefficiency at the expense of efficiency. There is also the question of perhaps creating a bad precedent for other Services. Suppose the general principles of the superannuation scheme become more widely known than they may be expected to be by ordinary Parliamentary discussion. There may well he a plea on behalf


of all the Fighting Services of the Crown that if officers of fairly low rank are required to leave, they also should have relatively better emoluments than those who are efficient and stay in the Service.
On the question of amount, I would ask my right hon. Friend how the superannuation allowance, the basic one without addition, to men of 36 leaving the Foreign Service, compares with that made to a major leaving the Army at the same age. I think we have to make quite sure that the amounts in the various Services of the Crown are similar, in order that there should not be any feeling of injustice as between those in one Service and those in another. There is one Clause to which I must take some exception, and that is the Henry VIII Clause—Clause 6—which gives power to the Secretary of State, by Order in Council, to amend other enactments. On more than one occasion we have drawn attention to the objections to this Henry VIII Clause, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any specific enactment which he may desire possibly to take powers to repeal or alter or whether this has been put in for safety in case something has been forgotten.
There are two or three other points I would like to make, and I do not think I shall be out of Order, because I could claim that they ought to have been put into the Bill. I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) in saying that our Foreign Service should not be starved. There was a French Ambassador in the 18th Century, the Cardinal de Bernis, who was always asking for more money from headquarters, which was generally refused him. His case was that he was keeping the French inn at one of the cross roads of Europe. I think it is most important that in the matter of entertainment and representation expenses our ambassadors and officials should not be starved. Although I have from time to time strongly contested my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's policy, I believe that he himself has been starved in representation and entertainment expenses for many years past. I would have liked it to have been possible for him to have included in this Bill, which is not only a superannuation Bill, some provision by which a Secretary of State for Foreign

Affairs could have certain allowances which he could spend as he wished on various forms of entertainment to distinguished foreigners and so on for the benefit of his country as a whole.
Then there is the question of languages. The Command Paper refers to this, which is most important. To some extent the pay of members of the Foreign Service should depend upon their power to learn languages. Too often when travelling round different capitals have many of us met diplomatists representing this country in smaller countries, like Bulgaria or Sweden, who after even six months or a year do not know the language of the country in which they are living. That is appalling. Every member of the Foreign Service ought to be given six months in which to learn the language of a new country when he goes to live in it as a member of the Legation or Embassy, and if he does not learn it in six months, questions ought to be asked. At the utmost he should be expected to know the language well at the end of a year.
I should like to reinforce what has been said as to the absolute necessity for every member of an Embassy or a Legation travelling about the country as much as possible in order really to get to know the people and their habits and not be stuck the whole time deciphering telegrams at headquarters. Furthermore, I believe that in many cases our Embassies, not only in war-time—that is understandable—but in peace-time have been grossly understaffed. An Embassy or Legation or foreign Mission should be, if possible, overstaffed. It would pay for itself every time. It would give an opportunity for its members to travel about the country and get to know the habits and customs of the people. Furthermore, it should be possible for the Ambassador so to arrange his staff that each member could concentrate, in addition to his ordinary office work, on some particular aspect of the life of the nation or some particular section of the population. For instance, one might specially get to know the trade union leaders, another might make a point of going to agricultural shows and another of meeting members of the Jockey Club, so that every cross section of the life of the country concerned would be tapped, as it were, and would be reported to head-


quarters. Those are a few suggestions which I believe are most important. I also welcome the Bill, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider the various suggestions which have been made in regard to it.

Mr. Harold Nicolson: I should not have intervened in this Debate had I not been stung to intervention by the remarks not only of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) but of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Falmouth (Major Petherick) in connection with Clause 2. The hon. Member for Keighley considered it unfortunate that inefficient officers should be retired at a certain age and feared that the powers entrusted to the Secretary of State might possibly be abused. He therefore suggested—
this is the remark which stung me into intervening—that there were many "agreeable places of exile" at the disposal of the Secretary of State to which an inefficient could be sent. I could not let that remark pass without protesting very strongly against it, because that is the every evil that the Clause is being introduced to stamp out. That is why the whole scheme devised by my right hon. Friend is likely to prove so revolutionary and so really contributory to the efficiency of the Service as a whole. There are no agreeable places of exile to which an inefficient can be sent without exposing the national interests of the country to grave danger. It might be said that Tunis or Algiers or Casablanca was a delightful and agreeable place of exile. We know that if we are going to keep the Service on the high level which it ought to maintain we must have a guillotine which is really a guillotine and not a series of asylums and sanatoriums. I regret also that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Falmouth, seeking to save the inefficient from the guillotine, suggested that they should be transferred to other branches of the Civil Service.

Major Petherick: I am not suggesting that an inefficient man should be transferred to another branch, but that a man who may be highly suitable for another branch but does not fit in with the Foreign Service should, at the Secretary of State's suggestion and by agreement with the head of the other Department, be transferred to it.

Mr. Nicolson: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has modified what struck me as an extreme statement into a statement which is not so extreme. But the fact remains that it is not a good system in the Civil Service to ask one Department to receive the discards of another.
There is one point on which I should like my right hon. Friend to give us some assurance. He is quite rightly, and with great courage, introducing this possibility of compulsory retirement at the rank of first secretary. I hope that when the guillotine really begins to work and the heads—the dunderheads—really begin to fall, he will not insist upon a retirement age of 60. It is one of the things which have exposed our Foreign Service almost to ridicule. Foreigners know all about the top diplomatic ranks of other countries. They know what sort of value people have. When they see a man like Sir Horace Rumbold retired at the very height of his capacity, at the very richness of his experience, at a moment when his authority was not confined merely to the post to which he was appointed but was an international authority, because he reaches 60, they feel that there is something very unimaginative about the central control. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will give the House an assurance that, if he gets rid of the inefficients when they are young, he will retain the services of the highly efficient when they reach the antediluvian age of 60.

Mr. Price: I, too, should like to offer a word of praise of the Foreign Secretary for having introduced the Bill, which will make for the greater efficiency of the increasingly important Foreign Service. Too long, I fear, has that Service been somewhat of a closed caste, gradually breaking down, it is true, but even now retaining somewhat of its former exclusiveness. Anyone who has travelled abroad in peace-time and has been to our Embassies and Consulates will have noticed that there is always a rather different atmosphere in the one from the other. There is a greater air of reality in the atmosphere of a Consulate than in that of an Embassy. It is increasingly the case in the modern world that the handling of economic, financial, trade and commercial problems is becoming the work of diplomacy. The exclusive atmophere of the spacious Victorian times,


when we could afford to sit back in an armchair and look upon foreigners disputing and quarrelling with one another while we lived in supreme isolation and indifference, has gone for ever. Therefore, although the Bill does not cover a very wide field and does not cover anything like the full scope of the problems dealt with in the White Paper which we discussed a few months ago—I have no doubt it will be followed up by further Measures—at least it does something in a direction which the House generally agrees is desirable.
Anything which would make it easier to promote into obscurity someone who has not proved satisfactory, without at the same time leaving a sense of grievance, is the right thing to do, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member who, I understood, said it was desirable that steps should be taken towards the interchangeability of members of the Foreign Service if it should be found that they could serve in a niche in some other Service. I do not think this means the other Services taking the discards of the Foreign Service, but anything that will give greater flexibility between the Services will be a step in the right direction. Where a member of the Diplomatic Service is found not suitable, it ought to be possible to have a little flexibility so that he could serve in another branch of the Civil Service where his capacity could be better utilised. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary because, though the Bill is a small one, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction which will make it possible for us to feel rather more pride in our Foreign Service than many of us have felt, because the times are changing, and the Foreign Service must get to know all about things that they have never thought of before. They must understand the labour problems and the economic and social aspects of the countries in which they are serving, and the broadening of the general outlook of the Service is extremely important. Though the Bill may not do much, it does something in this very desirable direction.

Sir Malcolm Robertson: I very cordially support the Bill and add my tribute to the Secretary of State, who has brought about a very much and very long needed reform. One aspect to which I should like to address myself, and

which perhaps some hon. Members may not wholly appreciate, is why the rank of first secretary has been chosen. I think the point really is this. A young man enters into a career, whatever it may be; for the purposes of this discussion it is the Foreign Service. He may be unsuited for it, but it is impossible to judge that in a year or two. When a man reaches the rank of first secretary he normally does a minimum of about 10 years' service. Here is the sort of case that might arise. A man joins the new Foreign Service. I have noticed a tendency in the House to forget that the Consular and Diplomatic Services are to be amalgamated. A young man joins that amalgamated Service. He serves for a year, say, in the Foreign Office. He is there regarded, not only by the head of his Department and his seniors but by the juniors of his own age, as incompetent at that particular work. Is he therefore to be turned out? No. The Foreign Office then send him to Para. After he has been there for six months the Consul writes home and says," At long last we are getting the right type of man in the Service. This type is first class in dealing with drunken sailors. He is excellent also in dealing with a community which is still more difficult. He knows, too, the local Brazilians and talks the language. He is just the sort of man we need." That man cannot be left for the rest of his life at Para, and he is transferred to an Embassy. After a few months there the Ambassador says, "So that is the new regime; this is the type of fellow we are getting now. He is no use whatever to us."
What is the answer to that, at that time of his life and career? He is not suited to Embassies but is better suited to more distant posts. Is he always to be kept at the more distant posts? Not necessarily. As the result of his career and training he may grow up to be a first class British representative in some of our more distant out-of-the-way posts, Eastern, Middle Eastern or elsewhere, but the safeguard all the time for him and for the rest of the Service is surely this. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is head of the Service, and it is obvious that he does not act "on his own." He acts on advice. As I understand it, there is to be a personnel board which will advise the Foreign Secretary. That board will do what I understand is not really done


at the present moment; it will keep a full record of every man who joins the Service. It will be able to judge, and it will be an unbiased board. There will be no question of political influence. In point of fact that has never obtained in the whole of my rather long career. A man's own personal political views just do not matter. The personnel board will judge a man by his record and the efficiency or inefficiency which he has shown, and it will advise the Foreign Secretary accordingly. The Foreign Secretary will be able to say to a man, "I am very sorry, but we have tried you in the rank of first class secretary everywhere we can, but you have proved incompetent for this particular Service. In these circumstances we think you had better go, and here is a pension for you." That is surely the only proper and fair way of acting.
I cordially agree with the hon. Member who said that it is quite wrong to retire men at the age of 60 just because they are 60. In the art of diplomacy—I use the word "art" deliberately—a man at the age of 60 may be at the finest point of his life, and it would be wrong to retire him just because he is 60. On the other hand, if you retire him at the age and rank of a first secretary, he has his life before him and may find other jobs to do. Very likely he might be unsuited only to the Foreign Service but be eminently suited to the Civil Service at home. He could try his hand there. One of the distresses of everybody's life in all ranks and professions is that you have to start so young and you may choose the wrong profession. This Bill will at least give the man who has chosen the wrong profession a pension to carry on with until he can find something else to do. I do not wish to stray, as some hon. Members clearly have done, beyond the purposes of this Bill, but I would like strongly to support it and again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing it in.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I want to speak for only a few minutes, because I am not an expert on this subject. I have only travelled abroad in the same way as the average citizen of this country. I would like to mention the question of transfer from one Service to another. It is a desirable policy, and I am glad it is to be followed. A friend of mine passed into the home

Civil Service at the end of his university career. At that time those who passed in the first 12 places were able to select whether they would go into the home Civil Service, the Indian Civil Service or the Colonial Civil Service. My friend selected the home Civil Service, but after about six months or a year he came to the conclusion that he was wasting his time, as he elegantly put it to me, "licking stamps," and he asked to be transferred to the Indian Civil Service. He was told that it could not be done. He managed to resign from the home Civil Service. He took the examination again, passed in the first six, and chose the Indian Civil Service. When he was on the point of retiring at the age of 55 I asked him what he thought about it. He said, "I wish I had not got through but had stayed in the home Civil Service." That shows that a young man of 22 or 23 is not fully capable of being able to make up his mind.
I would like to raise also the question of languages. Adverting to India, which I know most about, any civil servant up to any age can take an examination in any language in any district to which he had been transferred. A friend of mine took up a language at 50 and passed, but he had the inducement that it meant an additional 1,000 rupees, or about £80, to his salary. I understand that in countries which are not so popular, such as Bulgaria, Serbia, Rumania and other places like them, if you meet one of the undersecretaries at an Embassy and ask him how he is getting on with the language, it is possible to get the answer," I have not learned the language, and I have no intention of learning it. I do not want to stay in this country. I want to go to Paris or Vienna or Berlin or Washington." The Ambassadors and people who are high up know French and German and probably Italian and Spanish, but is there any inducement to learn the languages of the smaller countries?

Mr. Law: Yes.

Sir W. Smiles: I am glad to hear that, because it was a common thing in the past that people were reluctant to learn the languages of the smaller countries for fear of being condemned for a good deal of their service to the unpopular places.

Mr. Martin: I intervene to ask my right hon. Friend


whether he will clarify a point which has already been raised by my hon. Friend below me. Why has it been necessary to introduce in Clause 2 both a period of service and a rank? It is conceivable that you might get a second secretary of 10 or 15 years' service and 35 years of age who is not the type of man the Under-Secretary has defined and it may be desirable to retire him. I am not clear why my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary that he should be promoted to first secretary before this action can be taken. The second point I want to raise is about the provision in Clause 2. Should not this just apply to the Consular branch of the service? As I understand it, what is intended in the new proposals is to create not a large sea in which all the separate streams will lose their identities, but a sort of Siamese triplet in which the three branches can in some transcendental form merge from time to time but retain to a large extent their separate identities. It may be that my right hon. Friend will wish to retire men from the Consular branch in the same way as he will from the political branch. Will he say what are the comparable ranks in the two Services if that is done?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I do not like to make speeches, but I was extremely sorry to be in the United States when the wider proposals were discussed in this House. That was not because I thought I could say anything that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could not say very much better. Indeed, I read the whole of the Debate—a Very unusual experience for me. I read Hansard from cover to cover, and I thought that my right hon. Friend put the case for these reforms very well. The reason I would have liked to be here, however, was that these reforms represented the culmination of what has been the work of a good many years in which a number of us who happen to have served in the Foreign Office were acutely interested, and I should have liked to give my own reasons for presenting that White Paper. That time has passed, however, and it only remains for me to thank the House for the reception it gave to those proposals. I should like to take this opportunity of associating myself with the remarks which have been made during this Debate about the mem-

bers of the Foreign Service. I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend who opened the Debate said about the members of that Service, particularly as he spoke of the younger members. Other hon. Members have spoken in the same strain. I suppose nothing is further divorced from the truth than the stage representation of the diplomat, at least so far as I know in the working of the Diplomatic Service.
It so happens that for many years now I have had to serve in the Foreign Office without ever having been myself a member of the Diplomatic Service, and I have also served in other Government Departments. There are two things I should like to say about the Foreign Office. The first is that I am convinced that there is no other Department in this State which has a more loyal, more devoted and more efficient body of servants than the Foreign Office. The second thing I would like to say, rather more widely daring, is that I have seen a good many foreign Diplomatic Services—you cannot be Foreign Secretary without doing so; it falls to your lot to see them as you see your own—and I can say with absolute sincerity that I know of no foreign Diplomatic Service that I would exchange for our own, and I think most foreign diplomats of my acquaintance would probably endorse that view. I say that not in order that we may exude a general atmosphere of complacency, but because it is true and some harsh and unjust things have been said about the Foreign Service. But, having said that, I must admit that in any Service the need for modification and the need for change exists. When I said that harsh things have been said I do not mean in this House, but outside, and mostly by people who know very little about it. The proposals of which this Bill forms part are designed to meet certain needs which have arisen in the changes in the world as we know it now.
Before I answer some of the questions put to me, I should like to make one observation upon what my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) said just now about the age limit for retiring. If the House is good enough to approve these proposals, then I should hope, although, of course, I cannot bind my successors, that Foreign Secretaries would look with a benevolent eye on the rigid interpretation of 60 as the retiring age. As a matter of fact,


it probably has not escaped observation that at the present time there are some very distinguished Ambassadors who are quite definitely over the age of 60 and who show every sign of being quite secure in their tenancy. I hope that procedure will continue, and I think we must be allowed a certain laxity in the interpretation of that rule.
Now I come to the Bill and to the questions asked about it. First, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) asked about the need for Clause 2. I do not know that my hon. Friend understands what terrible powers are vested in me already. Without the powers in this Bill it is within my power to-day, by virtue of the office I temporarily hold, to dismiss any member of the Service; but quite apart from that, which is obviously a drastic step which might result in Questions in this House and other things of that kind, it is in my power to place a member of the Service en disponibilité, as a result of which he gets no pay and is out of a job for a quite indefinite period. Therefore, I am not being given any greater powers than I have already, but what I am to be allowed to do is to treat an individual with a measure of justice. I can assure the House this is not a sudden proposal. It has been, I know, an anxiety to many of my predecessors. I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the position of the Foreign Secretary. It is quite possible that an individual may be a good Counsellor and even a good Minister but cannot be a good Ambassador. The Foreign Secretary may then find himself faced with these alternatives, that either he has to carry the man, that is to say, find some place in which he can put him where he will not do too much harm but where it is known that he cannot do much good, until he reaches 60, when he can receive his pension, knowing quite well all the time that the man is not up to his job, or else he has to put him out on the streets without any pension at all.
Those cases may be rare. I cannot tell how often the powers under this Bill may have to be used, because much depends on the future and on personnel, but 1 feel that no Foreign Secretary ought to be put in the position of embarrassment which has been experienced by myself and many of my predecessors, because it is neither fair nor just. As to the abuse of these powers, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley was absolutely right in saying

that we shall have to watch that these powers are not abused. It would be possible for a Foreign Secretary to abuse them, and theoretically and technically it would he possible for him to abuse the powers he has already. The check upon such abuse is this admirable institution in which we now sit, this House. I have not the least doubt that if the Foreign Secretary were so foolish as to wish to abuse his powers this House would at once pull him up, but for my own greater safety I propose to take other precautions, and I contemplate devising some machinery by means of which I shall be advised about any course which I propose to take. I cannot imagine that any Foreign Secretary will be willing to take that responsibility except on advice, and naturally steps will be taken to obtain the best and most impartial advice that is available. I feel the House need not be anxious that these powers will be abused, and I hope I have convinced them that they are really necessary.
Next I come to some of the questions asked in detail. First, I was asked whether retirement could be initiated by anybody else than the Secretary of State. Could the man himself initiate his retirement? The answer is "No," the initiative much come from the Foreign Secretary if the man is to receive a pension. Then 1 was asked why the rank of first secretary had been chosen, why we had not gone lower down the scale. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson), who himself has done so much work for these reforms in their earlier stages, has given the answer. When a man reaches the rank of first secretary we should know what the chances are of his going ahead in one or other of the departments of the Foreign Service. Earlier than that it might be difficult to forecast it with similar certainty. But this is an experiment; this is the basis on which we are going to work. It may be that after the war, when the later Bill is introduced, we may wish to vary the present position. I have not closed my mind on the subject. As to what is the corresponding rank in the Consular Service to that of first secretary in the old Diplomatic Service, it is that of Consul.
Next I was asked whether this Bill will lapse as soon as the war is over. The answer is that it will not; it will go on until it is replaced. I should not like


to see it lapse. Perhaps I should explain, because I do not think it is quite clear to the minds of some hon. Members, that this Bill does all we need in the way of legislation in order to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper of which the House generally approved some months ago. This is all the legislation we need. The other matters in the White Paper do not need legislation in order to be put into force. That applies even to the question of the entry of women into the service. That can be effected by the Secretary of State. Therefore, the new Bill to which my right hon. Friend referred which will be introduced after the war will be a Bill on the same lines as this for the consolidation of the pensions service and will not cover a wider field than this. Another thing I was asked about was the supply of linen and saucepans in our Embassies abroad. I am glad 'to be able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) that linen and saucepans are now to be provided by an all-generous Treasury. Several hon. Members referred to a point of real importance, and that is that our representatives abroad should travel away from the capitals of the countries in which they are stationed. I attach the greatest importance to that proposal. Of recent years valuable developments have been taking place in that direction, and I am glad to find the House encouraging them, and the Treasury have paid allowances to make it possible. As some rather harsh things have been said about the Treasury to-day I should like to say how grateful I am to them for the help they have given me, without which these proposals would not be possible. Perhaps I may express that diplomatically in the spirit and with the hope that our good will expressed to-day will find itself reciprocated in the shape of things to come.

Mr. Kirkwood: T wish we in Scotland could say the same of the Treasury.

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend has a habit of getting his way, from what I have observed in this House for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir G. Gibson) spoke about South America and rather implied, perhaps with some justice as regard the past, 'that to that Continent or Sub

continent have been sent people who are not perhaps always quite so good as those who have represented us in Europe. If my hon. Friend will look at the list of our representatives in South America now, he will find that they are all, I think, younger men—as Ambassadors go. What we have been trying to do is to send some of our younger and more promising men to be Ministers and Ambassadors in South America. Perhaps at a later stage we bring them over to Europe, but we have definitely set our face against using those countries, which have great importance for us commercially as well as politically, as countries to which to send representatives whom we do not think good enough for countries in Europe. That I cart definitely assure the House, and hon. Members can confirm it by looking up the ages and records of those who are now our Ambassadors in those parts.
There was a little confusion I think about some of the other proposals in the White Paper. So far as new entrants are concerned there can be no new entrants until after the war. Man-power conditions do not allow it. There is no new entry into the Civil Service at all. Later we shall need an exceptionally large entry and we shall select them very largely on their records during this war period.

Sir G. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he intends to maintain the numbers of personnel in the Foreign Service during the time when he cannot make use of young men? Does he intend making use of the benign power of allowing members to remain on after the age of 60?

Mr. Eden: We have to do the best we can. Many of our members are actually in the Fighting Services, and their places have been taken by older men. Another question I was asked was why it is that the Board of Trade is only to be represented in the selection of individuals for the higher commercial posts. I was asked whether the Board of Trade ought not to be in everywhere. That is how the White Paper expresses it, but it is our intention that the Department of Overseas Trade, which is particularly concerned with the commercial aspect of the Foreign Service, shall be represented at all levels and therefore be consulted not only on all commercial appointments but also, if necessary, on political ones. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member


for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) asked me about recruitment to the Service from the Empire and from our Dominions. Of course, we gladly welcome recruits from them, and we have some very distinguished members of the Foreign Service who have come from the Dominions, but the Dominions now have their own Services, and although we work very closely together, it is natural that most of those from the Dominions would wish to go into the Services of the Dominions concerned. I was also asked why we had put in Clause 6. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) was a little suspicious that perhaps it covered some sins. It is a purely precautionary Clause, there is no other reason at all for it and, as my right hon. Friend made plain, if we have to make use of it any Order in Council will be subject to approval by a Resolution passed by both Houses.
I think I have covered the main questions which were put to me. I would like to conclude by saying something to the House. I would thank hon. Members for the welcome they have given to the Bill, and I would emphasise again that it is a small part of the reforms as a whole. It is small, because it is the only part that happens to require legislation. I presented all the reforms originally, in order to give the whole picture and because I thought that was far more useful and satisfactory to the House. Most of the reforms lie within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Secretary himself. When the war is over, I believe this country will have to play as great a part as it has ever played in its history, in the diplomatic work that lies ahead. Our geography and other matters, and our traditions, have given us this special position. We want to have a Service which will be really worthy of the responsibility that will be laid upon it. I believe that we can have such a Service and that the Bill will help us in that task. I once again thank the House for its welcome and hope that hon. Members will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. Pym.]

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN SERVICE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session making further provision as respects the superannuation benefits of members of His Majesty's foreign service, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the moneys to he provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935, and the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Act, 1929, that may be attributable to provisions of the first mentioned Act relating to—

(a) the grant of a superannuation allowance and an additional allowance to members of his Majesty's foreign service whose employment is terminated before the retiring age;
(b) members of the said service who, after recall from an office abroad by reason of war circumstances, have served in a less remunerative office under the Crown (whether at the time of their. recall they were members of that service or of His Majesty's Foreign Office and diplomatic service, commercial diplomatic service or consular service);
(c) the circumstances in which former members of His Majesty's consular service in China are to be treated as if they remained members thereof for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the Superannuation Act, 1935."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Eden.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2—(Rules.)

Mr. Storey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, to leave out Sub-section (3).
Apart from the fact that I believe the retention of this Sub-section would cause the Secretary of State to fail in his intention to protect Scotland from what he called the sub-standard nurses—for if, as I understand is the intention, there is to be complete reciprocity between England and Scotland, there is the possibility that English assistant nurses who start training five years after the Bill has become an Act will still be able to go to Scotland and work there—my main reason for moving the Amendment is that I feel that it would be a mistake to stop the training


of assistant nurses in five years' time. With all respect to the Alness Committee, the Debate on the English Bill showed, I think, that there is work that assistant nurses can do, and that our health services and hospital services need them. That need with the development which we expect in our National Health and hospital services is not likely to be less in five years' time.
My chief objection is that I think the inclusion of the Sub-section would close a valuable recruiting source for candidates for the State Register. The County of Essex has proved that it is possible to take women who are not fitted at the time for training for the State Register and, by a proper system of education and training, not only to fit them to be assistant nurses but to fit a fair proportion of them to be able to take the full training for the State Register. It would be a mistake to close this source of recruiting to a profession which needs many recruits. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to accept the Amendment and will concentrate on seeing that there is a proper system of training and education which will enable many assistant nurses to go on and accept the full training for the State Register.

Mr. Linstead: I support what has just been said. There seems to have been a difference of opinion between two committees which were set up to consider the position of nurses in Scotland, as to the number of assistant nurses available in that country. The Black Committee, which preceded the Alness Committee, found that there was a substantial number of assistant nurses in Scotland. After allowing for the State registered and the student nurses, the Black figures indicated that some 2,500 assistant nurses existed in Scotland at that time. The Alness Committee were able to find only 250. As a further check upon the numbers, there are the figures which were found when the Civil Nursing Reserve was set up in Scotland. There were then something like 2,500 assistant nurses. It appears from this that the Black figure was right and the Alness figure an under-estimate.
If that is true, we are likely to find that, although there are no more entrants, after five years there will still be a demand for assistant nurses and that the demand will be filled either by immigration from England or by the appointment of women by

hospitals without their being enrolled or registered, simply because they are needed. For this reason it seems desirable that the door should be kept open after the five years' period. I hope that the Secretary of State will find it possible to give further thought to the actual wording of the Sub-section. I have not found in any other Act of Parliament the phrase:
unless Parliament shall hereafter otherwise determine.
That suggests that the rest of the Bill is not capable of amendment by this House and that this is the only Clause which Parliament may amend.
I would also draw attention to the fact that the Sub-section refers to
training of persons for admission to be enrolled.
In fact, training is not sufficient for that purpose. Training and examination are needed, as is clear from the subsequent Amendment which my hon. Friend has upon the Paper. It seems that the wording should be looked at again. I hope that the Secretary of State will find it possible to omit the period of five years and to take power himself to close the door if he finds it necessary. We should not close the door five years before we know whether it will be necessary to do so, and I hope that some alteration may be made in this Clause at the Report stage.

Mrs. Hardie: This is the one Clause which has made the Bill acceptable to the nursing profession in Scotland. It can be reconsidered at the end of five years. In view of the fact that the Committee in Scotland was against the introduction of assistant nurses, this is a departure from the findings of that Committee. It was wise of the Secretary of State to put it into the Clause, and I think it should be left in.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment referred to the Report of the Alness Committee. There were two committees, the Athlone Committee, of which Lord Athlone was chairman and which inquired into the position in England, and the Alness Committee, of which the chairman was Lord Alness, late Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord Justice-Clerk. Those two committees reported in absolutely contrary directions on this matter. The Alness Committee was very representative and


was unanimous in reporting that there should be no assistant-nurses grade set up in Scotland. They repeatedly said that they thought it would be a retrograde step to do so. On page 16 they said:
We feel that the adoption of the suggestion to recognise assistant nurses might even, if an attempt was made to draw a distinction between them and the nurses on the existing part of the General Nursing Council Register, nullify many of the advantages of the benefits under the Act of 1919, tend to lower the status of the profession and would not be in the public interest.
They wound up by saying:
After careful consideration of all the circumstances we do not recommend the setting up of a grade of assistant nurses.
In that they may have been right or wrong, but I can assure my hon. Friends that they had a variety of evidence tendered to them. There is no subject in the nursing profession over which there is, I believe, greater disputation than over this.
The Athlone Committee, on the other hand, upon the evidence before them, were unanimous in saying that they would set up for England and Wales a separate assistant-nurses roll. This was the difficulty with which the Government were faced; what were we to do about it? The Minister of Health properly produced a Bill in which he endorsed the conclusions of the Athlone Committee, I was then faced with the problem of doing something about the position. I asked the Alness Committee to come and meet me to see whether they still adhered to their opinions in the awkward situation. They most emphatically said that they did. I can assure the mover of the Amendment that 1 did not stop there. I saw the representatives of the General Nursing Council for Scotland and of the Royal College of Nursing, and I was at no end of pains to try to resolve the deep-seated difference of opinion. After long and anxious negotiations I induced Lord Alness and his Committee and the other bodies who were equally opposed to the English Clause, to agree to the setting-up of this additional supplementary register, as I call it, but over a period of five years only. If at the end of five years the necessity for it continues to be justified, it is an easy matter in the light of the later experience to get the Clause continued by a short supplementary Bill. But in the present stage of opinion, with the vital, almost irreconcilable, differences on this

matter, I submit that there is nothing else that we could do than get through the Bill on the terms in which it is drafted.
May I assure my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment that unless we can put in this limit of five years we shall never get the assent of the local authorities, who are opposed to this grade of assistant nurses? At least, so far as they are vocal, local authority associations were opposed to it, and really it is impossible to get a move on in the provision of more nurses in Scotland, and get harmony in the nursing profession, unless some such Clause as we have drafted in this Bill is agreed to by Parliament. I think I am right in saying, though I speak here with diffidence, that even the Royal College of Nursing now, although they dislike this Clause, are agreed to accept it as the lesser of two evils, and as most steps in life are a choice between two evils, I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Training as assistant nurse to be reckoned towards period of training for admission to register.)

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, to leave out from the beginning to the second "the," in line 38, and to insert:
In order that persons enrolled as assistant nurses, who have at any time before their admission to the roll undergone training with a view to qualifying for admission to the register, but have not so quailfied, may be encouraged so to qualify.
This Amendment on the Order Paper in the Government's name is designed to fulfil a promise that I made on Second Reading. We quite recognise that here again there are strong differences of opinion in the nursing profession, and I quite recognise that there are apprehensions in certain sections of the nursing profession that the Clause as originally drafted was too wide in its terms. I promised on the Second Reading of the Bill to limit this application to nurses who had already undergone some part of their State training. May I try to explain? I take one case that comes within my knowledge. There is a lady who had some part of her State training. She married an Air Force officer, who has died. She joined the Civil Nursing Reserve, and is now in it earning


somewhere about £70 per annum plus, of course, keep, clothing and other emoluments. Now we want to urge this lady and hundreds of others to qualify themselves for the full State registered nurse grade. It is highly desirable in the national interest that we get the maximum number of these girls on to the full State register, but if I say to this girl, "Please continue your training," she says, first of all to me, "Under the existing rules I have got to begin at the beginning again, and the training I have had goes for nothing." That is bad enough, but then it appears to be the case that this girl, if she wants to qualify for the full State registered nurse grade, has to come down from her present £70 salary to £45. That is no encouragement to secure the maximum volume of new recruits to the complete certificate grade, and we are very anxious Indeed to encourage as many of these girls as possible to continue their training. We have limited this Clause to girls who have already had some training. As the Clause was drafted originally it did not only apply to girls who have had some part of their training, but to girls who had undergone training for enrolment to the assistant nurses grade. That was felt in some quarters to be unduly wide. We have accepted that, though there is a strong body of opinion that feels otherwise. We had the choice again between two bodies of opinion. I think it is necessary that we should do everything possible to augment the roll of State registered nurses. I beg the Committee to let us have this Clause. What is it? We only say that the General Nursing Council "shall," not "may," make a rule or regulation permitting girls who have already undergone part of their training in previous hospital experience or something else to allow that previous experience to count towards their final training and certificate.

Mr. Francis Beattie: Does that apply to the V.A.D.s who have done training?

Mr. Johnston: No, I think it does not, but certainly it applies to every girl who is now on the Assistant Nurses Roll.

Mr. Beattie: If a V.A.D. has had two years' training in nursing, surely she is qualified if she can pass the necessary

examination and transfer herself to become an assistant nurse with a view to becoming a State registered nurse?

Mr. Johnston: That raises another question. I will try to find out for my hon. Friend before the Debate is over whether V.A.D.s are included.

Mr. Messer: It is surely a question of whether the training she has justifies her in sitting for the examination. She cannot become an assistant nurse unless she passes an examination. She cannot pass the examination unless she has had a period of training provided in the Bill.

Mr. Johnston: So far as my information goes, this Clause is only available to benefit girls who have at some time or other undertaken part of the training for the grade of State registered nurse.

Mr. Messer: The prescribed training?

Mr. Johnston: I think so, but I will find out accurately before the Debate is over and let my hon. Friend know. Let us see where we are going from here. The Royal College of Nursing took a sample test—at least I think it was a sample test —of over 1,000 cases of nurses who would be eligible to get on to the assistant nurses' roll to see what their experience had been. What did they find? They found over 800, I think 860 of them, out of 1,031 had actually undertaken part of their training as State qualified nurses at some time or other. Here, surely, is the finest body of recruits we can get for the roll of fully qualified nurses—girls who have undergone part of the training, and for one reason or other, perhaps because of getting married or some other reason have dropped it, or perhaps failed in the initial examination. Surely there is the finest recruiting ground we can have to relieve what is the great shortage in the nursing profession at present. We are more short of nurses than in England, very much, and I would only say this: Since this proposed Amendment has been put down I have reason to believe that the Scottish section of the Royal College of Nursing are prepared to accept it, and there is no Amendment to it down on the Order Paper. I have received no representation whatever from any quarter against this proposed Amendment as it. now stands, and I cordially commend it to the Committee.

Sir Samuel Chapman: In the concluding words which my right hon. Friend uttered he said, I think, that he assumed that the nurses of the Royal College of Nursing were perfectly satisfied with the Clause. He need doubt it no longer, because I had the pleasure of a large deputation to see me a fortnight ago. We went into the whole question after the discussion in this House. My right hon. Friend has carried out his promise. I have a letter in my hand from the Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, Edinburgh Branch. I will read an extract from it that will satisfy my right hon. Friend that he is doing the right thing. It reads:
We have had an opportunity of seeing the redraft of Clause 14 and now feel that the dangerous implications which were causing us so much anxiety have been removed in the Secretary's new draft, and we are indeed grateful to him for his consideration in this matter.
So far as I am concerned, that finishes any criticism I had, and I heartily support the Clause and thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Storey: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Amendment. It meets the main criticism which led to the later Amendment in my name and that of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Lin-stead), to leave out the Clause. This I do not now propose to move. We welcome the Amendment, and the Clause now is acceptable.

Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow): I am glad that the Secretary of State has been able to find words which meet with the approval of those who previously had doubts about this Clause, A letter which I have received from the Royal College of Nursing says:
We feel that our objection to the Clause can be withdrawn and are prepared to accept the new wording proposed by Mr. Johnston.
It is clear that we shall accept the Amendment, and that the Clause will be passed in its new form. Only one doubt remains in the minds of certain people. That is whether the step we are taking will enable us properly to march with the nursing profession in England. The question of equal qualification still troubles a number of people. The point is whether nurses can cross the Border and be accepted in the profession on similar terms. The Secretary of State did not

touch that point, and I wonder whether he could give the Committee some assurance on it. That would be welcomed not only by those of us who have been trying to find our way about in connection with this Bill, but by those outside who are interested in the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and I are very concerned about the tributes which are being paid to the Minister. We consider it necessary to draw attention to one feature which I know will be the last thing to concern Members opposite, but which will concern Members on this side. A deputation of nurses came here to see an hon. Member, and as he was not here the policeman handed them over to my care. I introduced them to the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), and in no time there was nearly a public riot over the subject referred to in this Clause.

Sir S. Chapman: One of the nurses who came down has written this letter to me.

Mr. Gallacher: Seven were here, and probably one of them has written a letter, after seeing the Amendment. I can assure the Committee that there was a very tense and difficult situation between the hon. Member for Greenock and these nurses over this question. The Secretary of State said that one of the difficulties was that these assistant nurses, if they had to start from the beginning would go back from £70 to £45. How the Secretary of State can say that without a shudder, passes my comprehension. Is it not clear that one of the measures for ensuring elimination of the difficulties must be to make the minimum £70? How can we discuss such a reward for services of the kind that are given? It may seem a lot of money to the poor fellows on the other side—and so they make no reference to it—but I think that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and I speak for most Members on this side when we say, "Get away from the £45 as soon as possible, and you will solve most of the difficulties between the State nurses and the assistant nurses."

Mr. Johnston: With permission, I should like to answer the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He is completely mistaken. What we are trying to do is to cut clown the period which


the nurse will have to wait before she gets £100 a year. We are not cutting down her money at all; we are going in an entirely opposite direction.

Mr. Gallacher: But the right hon. Gentleman said it would be reduced.

Mr. Johnston: No, the hon. Member does not understand. A student nurse begins at £45, plus, of course, her board, uniform, clothing, and all the rest. Whether that is adequate or not does not arise on this Clause. This Clause compels the General Nursing Council, not to send a nurse back from £70 to £45, but to shorten the period before this nurse, who is at present getting £70, will get £100. Therefore, the hon. Member's remarks fall flat.

Mr. Gallacher: But the Minister's argument was that the amount would be reduced.

Mr. Johnston: No, I was endeavouring to show that under existing conditions the nurse who wanted to complete her training would have to drop from £70 to £45. I am trying to stop it. The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands what we are doing here. He is so anxious to score a political debating point that he has not taken the trouble to understand the Bill or the Clause. He cannot get away with stories like that. As for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), who asks about reciprocity between Scotland and England, that is provided for in the Bill. That is one of the reasons why we fixed a five-year period to allow Parliament to consider the matter further. It is true that a girl who joined in England can go to serve in Scotland, and that a girl who started in Scotland may go to serve in England. There is not complete uniformity in salary—in some grades Scotland is better, in some Scotland is worse—but we are not trying to iron out all these inequalities in this Bill. I am trying to get a greatly augmented roll of fully-qualified nurses in Scotland. That is all that is in this Bill, and I submit that we are giving effect to that policy.

Mr. Messer: rose—

The Chairman (Major Milner): I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to continue the Debate on the rather wide lines

adopted by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Messer: I was going to remove a wrong impression. There are two categories of nurses. When the Bill becomes law, there will be the assistant nurse, who does not at present exist. The assistant nurse is to start at £70 a year. The student nurse starts at the lower figure of £45. The Bill provides that an assistant nurse, after her period of training, may count that period without reduction in her salary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(List of certain nurses not registered or enrolled.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Messer: It is with much diffidence that an Englishman says anything about a Scottish Bill. I do so only because my concern for the nursing profession is balanced by my love of Scotland. I had hoped that Scotland would not have parted from England but would have been a long way in front of England. I realised after the English Bill had passed that there would be very little hope of getting a great deal of alteration in this Bill, but I must draw attention to a continued act of injustice in this Clause. This Clause perpetuates a system which denies to nurses who have all the qualifications required for registration, the right to get on the State Register. The arguments for that system are lacking in reality. There is still a large number of nurses who have had full training, who have got their school certificate, who have certificates in addition to those held by nurses on the State Register, but who are denied the right to call themselves State registered nurses. This Clause proposes to put them on a list. They are nurses who, for reasons many of which are outside the power of the people concerned, were unable to get on the Register when the 1919 Act came into operation. Some of them got married. I had a letter recently from a nurse who said that her husband died two weeks after the last day upon which she could have claimed to go on the Register. From thence onward, she has been unable to go on the Register.
Some of these nurses have held very high positions; some have become departmental sisters, administrative sisters, deputy matrons, and matrons of hosptials. They will not be able to continue to call themselves "matron" in the sense defined by the Report of Lord Rushcliffe's Committee. In the Rushcliffe's report, they are all qualified by being State registered nurses. No harm would have been clone to anybody had these nurses been entitled to go on the Register. I feel that my appeal can hardly be met, because the Minister of Health has declined to accept the suggestion that the Register should be open, but it seems to be an act of grave injustice to retain the present position. I cannot expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to depart far from the decision of the Minister of Health, but I hope the time will arrive when we shall do this act of justice, and give these nurses what is their due.

Mr. Johnston: I can say that I have had no representations from anyone on the lines of my hon. Friend's statement and appeal. But I certainly do not want to see any injustice. I want to see the maximum number of nurses enrolled in Scotland. If I am satisfied, between now and the time when the Bill appears in another place, that any injustice has been done, I will see whether it can be altered.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

Clauses 19, 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

SETTLED LAND AND TRUSTEE ACTS (COURT'S GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of powers under 15 Geo. 5, c. 18, s. 64, and c. 19, S. 57.)

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "all sources," and to insert "the land."
The purpose of this Amendment is to meet the case of the tenant for life whose

income is derived partly from the settled estate and partly from other sources. As the Bill is drafted, the court is required to take into consideration, in determining whether it shall sanction the payment of maintenance expenses out of the capital of the settled fund, the income of the tenant for life derived from all sources. If this Amendment is adopted, that position will be changed, and the court will only be required to have regard to the income enjoyed by the tenant for life from the settled land. My hon. Friends and I have put down this Amendment because it seemed to us that, if the Bill passes as it is drafted and the court, in dealing with the matters with which it will have to deal under the Bill, is required to consider for this purpose the income which the tenant for life enjoys from all sources, that might result, in certain circumstances, in unfairness to the tenant for life; and in certain circumstances it might also result in unfairness to the remainder man who would ultimately be entitled to the settled estate.
Take, for example, the case of a tenant for life whose income is derived, partly from settled estate, and partly from a profession or business which he may conduct quite apart from his interest in the settled estate. It may be, and it very often is the case, that the family of the tenant for life are not the persons who will be entitled as remainder men to the ultimate enjoyment of the settled estate. Therefore, the position of the tenant for life will be that, on the one hand, he will be faced with the obligation of maintaining the settled estate from a depleted income, and, on the other hand, he will be confronted with his natural desire to make provision for his immediate dependants. His dependants may not, as I have said, be entitled after his death to the enjoyment of the income from the settled estate. The tenant for life who is placed in this situation will, I suggest to the Committee, be disposed to devote that part of his income which he derives from his own exertions or from his property which is not comprised in the settlement, to making provision for the members of his family after his death. He will not feel disposed to devote more of his income than he is obliged to do to the maintenance of the property which he enjoys for his life only but which, after his death, is going to pass away to somebody else.
If the Bill passes in the form in which it is at present drafted, the tenant for life will not be encouraged to making any application to meet maintenance expenses out of the capital of the settled estate, because if he does so the court will have regard, not only to the income which he derives from the settled estate, but also to the income which he enjoys from other sources. Therefore his inclination would be not to make any application but to allow the settled property to depreciate, is the result which this Bill seeks to prevent—and devote as much of his income as he is able to making provision for those members of his family who would not enjoy the income from the settled estate after his death. Therefore, to that extent, this Bill seems likely to fail, in the sort of case to which I have drawn attention, to achieve the purpose for which it has been introduced.
Let me add a few words about the converse of the situation I was putting before the Committee a few moments ago. Take the case of the tenant for life whose income derived from sources other than the settled estate has been depleted owing to war circumstances, so that the major part of his income is derived from the income of the settled estate. In these circumstances the court, in determining whether his income has been reduced by war conditions in such a way as to justify the expenditure of capital on maintenance, must have regard to all the cources of income which he enjoys. This position may arise; because of the failure of income not derived from the settled estate, the tenant for life may become entitled to expend upon the maintenance of the estate part of the capital of the estate not because the income derived from the settled estate has failed, but because his income derived from other sources has been unduly reduced. In these circumstances the purpose of the Bill seems more likely to be achieved if the court is restricted to the consideration of the income of the tenant for life derived from the estate only and not from other sources.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I beg to support the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). He has covered the ground pretty thoroughly, but there are one or two points I would like to mention for the purpose of further emphasis. In page 2

of the Bill, paragraphs (b) and (c), the source of income which must bear the expenses of repairs and management expenses is defined. The first point to be observed here is that there is a distinction between cases where there is a tenant for life and where there is not. In the latter case, the only income to be dealt with is ex necessitate the income arising from the settled land. But in other cases where there is a tenant for life and the expenditure on necessary repairs and management expenses is too great to be borne by this income, then the whole income derived from other sources outside the settled land, but coming to the benefit of the tenant for life, must be brought into account. This is both illogical and unjust.
The usual procedure is to take the expenditure on repairs and management expenses from the income on the settled land, and that is why the tenant for life cannot in any way deal with the capital for this purpose. It therefore seems very unjust that where the expenditure is greater than the income derived from the estate by the tenant for life, he should, out of his own private estate and investments, quite apart from the settled land, pay the expenses of repairs for the benefit of the remainder man. In substance this amounts practically to a partial capitalisation of the private income of the tenant for life in favour of the remainder man. It is a particularly additional piece of injustice where the tenant for life is a man of advanced age or is unable to enjoy the advantages of the expenditure incurred. It has to be remembered that the relief which is sought by this Bill is not merely to relieve a tenant for life who is embarrassed by taxation on an unprecedented scale, but he should be encouraged in the good management of his estate. He should be enabled to pay for such repairs as will enable him to keep together in concrete form the capital assets which would be to the advantage of the nation as a whole, to all the beneficiaries and, indeed, to the revenue itself. I would like to point out that the procedure under the Bill is of a temporary nature, due to the emergency in which we find ourselves at the present time. I think it is clearly defined in Clause 1, Sub-section (6) of the Bill.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I appreciate the reasons which have led to the putting down of


this Amendment, but I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it. Like most of the matters about which one can argue, it all depends upon the way one looks at it. In effect, Clause 1 of the Bill entitles a life tenant to take someone else's money, namely, the remainder man's money, for expenditure repair and management, income expenditure, which clearly and in law falls on him and for which, in law, he is not entitled to resort to capital. It is always attractive to be able to take someone else's money for the purpose of defraying expenditure which would normally fall on oneself, but it is a process which requires careful safeguarding. The case raised by this Amendment is a case in which income from settled land itself is insufficient for the proper repair and management expenditure of the estate but in which the life tenant has other resources. The question therefore is: Should the deficit be made up out of the resources of the life tenant or be made up from the property of the remainder man? Looked at in that way—which I think is a fair way to look at it—we felt that in that case the life tenant, who has enjoyed and will enjoy the results of this income expenditure during his life, should look first to his other resources which he has himself before he himself should be entitled to draw on the resources of the remainder man.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) referred to a case in which the life tenant was not personally interested in the remainder men, who may not be his children or members of his family. That, I think, would not be the usual case, and one has on the whole to do one's best to make a sensible provision for the usual case. I quite see the point of what he said, namely, that he might have less motive for keeping the property in good condition. But, on the other hand, he is the life tenant of it, and there are various motives, personal and financial, which should lead him to keep the property in good condition. But from one point of view the case in which the remainder men are wholly unconnected with the life tenant is the case in which one might be slower to allow him to dip into their property, where they were not his own children whose interest one would assume he would have at heart. Although I appreciate the point, we felt—and I hope the Committee will agree—that where the

tenant for life has other resources aval1able, they should be looked to to make up the assumed deficit in keeping up repairs and management of the estate, and the court should take those resources into account before authorising him to take property which is not his for the purpose of defraying his expenditure. Although my explanation may not completely satisfy the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, they will realise that there are strong reasons for the Bill remaining in the form in which it is, and I hope they will see their way not to press their Amendment.

Sir John Mellor: I am flat quite convinced with my right hon. arid learned Friend's explanation as to the fairness of expecting a tenant for life to subsidise, in effect, the interest of the remainder man out of his independent income. In this matter, which is, after all, a war emergency matter, the Government are being a little inconsistent in showing a rather excessive desire to protect the capital interest as distinct from the life interest, when we remember that in the case of the war damage contribution they were particularly careful to make it clear that that was to be treated as capital liability. No doubt in that case the Government were actuated by an ulterior motive; they wished to prevent any possibility of the amount of the war damage contribution being treated as a permissible deduction for the purposes of assessment for Income Tax. But none the less that is the line they took, and if we were to contrast that with the line they are taking with regard to this Amendment, it does appear to be somewhat inconsistent. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said there are two points of view and it depends upon the one you take. I admit that and I, personally, would not press this Amendment very strenuously.

Mr. Hutchinson: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said I do not desire to press this Amendment, and I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out from "or" to "or," in line 9, and to insert:
to make it in the opinion of the Court unreasonable that he should bear such expense.


This Amendment aims at avoiding the use of the expression "undue hardship," which seems to me and my hon. Friends who have put their names to this Amendment to be an expression which is capable of undesirable and unnecessary ambiguity. Accordingly, we have put down this Amendment to avoid the use of that expression and to afford a wider latitude to the court in dealing with these matters than it would enjoy under the Bill as it is at present drafted. If the last Amendment had been accepted, the point which we make here would have been met to some extent.
What is the meaning of the expression "undue hardship?" Clearly it is intended that there should be something more than ordinary hardship, something in the nature of exceptional hardship. But the courts have to construe this expression and as my right hon. and learned Friend said about the last Amendment there are always two opinions on these matters. If this expression is used there are likely to be more than two opinions. Take, for example, the case where a mansion house which forms part of a settled estate become uninhabitable unless certain expenditure is made upon it. Is that undue hardship which would justify a court in permitting expenditure to he met from the capital funds of the settled estate? Is it undue hardship that the tenant for life should be precluded from residing in the mansion house in which he otherwise would have been entitled to live? I do not know. Again, is it undue hardship that the tenant for life should not be able to send his children to the schools to which he otherwise would have wished to send them if he had not been faced with the expenditure of maintaining his settled property? Are these undue and exceptional hardships which would justify a court in authorising expenditure from the capital estate? It would be much better to avoid the use of an expression of this sort altogether. If the matter is to be left, as it must necessarily be left in a very large measure, to the discretion of the court, it would be best to give the court free and unfettered discretion and to say that if the court considered, having regard to all circumstances in each individual case, that it was unreasonable that the tenant for life should be expected to bear the full maintenance expenditure of the settled property, then the court

might authorise the necessary expenditure to be met from capital funds, without having to consider whether there was hardship or undue hardship, or what exactly was meant by the expression "undue hardship." I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept the view that it is much better in a matter of this nature to leave the court complete and unfettered discretion.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I beg to support the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I thought my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) would suggest at one time that his form of words would make a solution of these problems easier, but I do not see myself how they would affect that. He asked whether it would be undue hardship that a man should not be able to finance certain repairs to a mansion house which would enable him to live in it. I might say, "Would it be unreasonable?", which is the word used in the Amendment. Then my hon. and learned Friend asked whether it would not be an undue hardship if repairs or management expenses could not be carried out and whether children of the life tenant could not be educated at schools at which they were at present being educated. Those are, I agree, questions of the type that might arise, but I do not know that one would really assist in their solution by substituting the word "unreasonable" for "undue hardship." I quite agree that this matter must be left to a large extent to the discretion of the courts taking into account, as they have to, all the circumstances, but we really intend—I hope the Committee will think it right—that undue hardship should be the test, interpreted reasonably, as we have every reason to anticipate it will be, having regard to the circumstances, by the court.
There is no doubt that war taxation, in itself, inflicts hardship in one sense on a very large number of people whose incomes have been greatly diminished, and who have had to adjust perfectly reasonable pre-war commitments and obligations to the restricted incomes at present available. Therefore some degree of hardship on those whose incomes have been considerably reduced is the common lot, which is gladly shouldered by all concerned, in order to assist in paying the taxes to finance the war. It is only in cases in which a man can show some-


thing over and above that ordinary adjustment, in which we feel that the court could confer on him the right to draw on the capital that is vested in the remainder man. I think it proper and relevant to mention that these words were shown by my noble Friend to the Chancery judges, who will have to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act, and they have approved the words and regard them as words which can properly and fairly be applied in the administration of the Measure. I agree that the word "unreasonable" is a little vaguer—I think the court might complain that it is really too vague—but I very much doubt whether there will be any appreciable difference in how the courts would apply it. We feel that." undue hardship "expresses our intention as the proper basis on which an application for the using of capital money for income purpose should be granted and I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert new Sub-section:
(5) Notwithstanding anything herein-before contained in this Section trustees of settled land or of land held on trust for sale may, on the written request of a person beneficially entitled as aforesaid and without any order of the Court under this Act expend capital money in or for the management of land as aforesaid. Provided that capital money so expended under this Sub-section during the period of the emergency shall not exceed an aggregate sum equal to twice the annual value of the land comprised in the settlement or trust,
This Amendment would have the effect of enabling the trustees of a settlement to expend moneys from the capital funds of a settlement within certain restricted limits, upon maintenance without the necessity, which arises in every case under the Bill as at present drafted, of making an application for the sanction of the court to do so. The purpose is really to assist the tenants for life of small settled estates. Under the Bill the sanction of the court is necessary for every expenditure which is sought to be made out of the capital funds of the settled estate. We propose that, in the case of certain restricted sums, the trustees of a settlement shall be entitled to make certain limited expenditure without incurring the additional expense of having

to make an application to the Court for sanction to do so. There may well be cases in which the additional expense of going first to the Court to get sanction will be prohibitive and will deter the trustees from taking the course, which may be really in the interests not only of the tenant for life but of the remainder man too, of expending a small part of the capital for maintenance purposes at a time when the tenant for life is not in a position to do so. Here again we think the purpose of the Bill, the object of which is to ensure that property is properly maintained during the period of emergency, will to that extent be defeated.
It is particularly in the case of small settlements that this is most likely to arise. An application to the court is not something that can be done for nothing. Evidence is required, sometimes expert evidence of a rather expensive character, and the necessary professional assistance must be employed. All that increases the expense, and in the case of a small settlement it may well have the effect of deterring the trustees from doing what they would otherwise desire to do and meeting the maintenance expenses by some small draft upon the capital funds of the settled estate. I entirely agree that this is something of an exceptional nature which one must not encourage beyond a certain point. In framing the Amendment I have endeavoured to keep this consideration clearly in mind and therefore this proposed Clause provides that the amount of capital which may be expended shall be restricted to twice the annual value of the settled estate. That means that the settled property cannot be permanently or very seriously impoverished. In that way the proposed Clause meets the argument that this power of the trustees to dip into capital ought to be carefully restricted. This power is not some thing which we are giving to the trustees for ever. It can only last during the period of the emergency—only so long as the power which the Bill gives to make expenditure with the sanction of the court continues. Therefore, what we are asking is really a very small matter. It is to enable the trustees of small estates to make expenditure, within very restricted limits, out of the capital of the estate without imposing upon them the additional expense of making an application to the court. I hope that my right hon. and learned


Friend will see his way to give us some encouragement that this matter will be taken into account. twice the annual value is considered to be too much, we shall be very glad if a smaller sum is substituted. But I hope that, in the interests of these small estates, my right hon. and learned Friend can give us some hope that something on the lines of what the Amendment suggests may be adopted.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I consider it essential that law costs and applications to the court should be reduced to a minimum during war-time. It seems to me that it should be unnecessary for an application to be made each time a sum is required for payment for repairs and that an application should only be necessary for the expenditure of capital moneys on repairs or works which have already been done to any specified property within a particular time, say a year. It seems also desirable that there should be a fixed sum for the covering of expenses for management during one year, without continual application to the court. The amount that we desire is twice the annual value of the property, but I quite agree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said with regard to that. The trustees and any other persons who are interested in the property can be protected by applying to the court for directions, just as they can in all other matters that are dealt with by the Settled Land and Trustee Act. Unless an Amendment of this kind is permitted, I fear the relief which the Bill purports to afford will be purely nugatory. This was pointed out by a distinguished judge in another place. A similar Amendment to this was negatived, but the opinion was expressed that elsewhere more favourable consideration might be given to it. I therefore rely on the good sense of my fellow Members and of my right hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend knows, we cannot go into what happens in another place, or I might have made an effective quotation in answer to his suggestion as to what happened there. My hon. Friends have stressed the case of the small estate, and that undoubtedly is a case which one ought to consider. On the other hand, I think it is just and relevant to mention that it is in the case of large estates and people with larger incomes that war taxation has made a more

devastating reduction of expendable money. The amount by which large incomes have come down is far greater in proportion than the amount by which smaller incomes have come down, and that is worth bearing in mind. There are various difficulties that we feel about this Amendment. One of them is, I think, insuperable though it is not perhaps the most fundamental in principle. Under the Bill as it stands—the first Amendment of my hon. Friends not having been accepted—in order to obtain the right, or in order to dip into the remainder man's money, account has to be taken of the other resources of the tenant for life. It seems to me quite impossible to ask the trustees of any settlement, who would have no power to make inquiries into, or be satisfied as to the other resources of a tenant for life, to exercise a discretion which, by the Bill, is made dependent on what those other resources are. If it had been thought proper to restrict the income to be considered to income from the settled estate, no doubt the trustees would have had full knowledge of what that income was. But under the Bill as it stands—which we think right for the reasons I have given—before the tenant for life is entitled to take the remainder man's money, you have to take into account his other resources. As a practical matter it would be impossible to expect the trustees of a settlement to exercise a discretion which would depend on facts regarding which they had no means of finding out the truth. That is the practical objection which, I think, is insuperable.
The objection in principle is that this really is a matter which ought to be sanctioned by the court. It is taking other people's money for income purposes, and although the Bill says that income expenditure must be shown to be for the benefit of the estate, it is right to remember that income, maintenance, management and repair expenses are primarily necessary for the proper enjoyment and upkeep of the property by the tenant for life. If he neglects them the the rents will not come in or his house will become uncomfortable, or there will be a leak in the roof. It is expenditure which anybody who owns property makes in order to get a proper return for it. Therefore, as a matter of principle—and this was stressed in another place—it is a case in which the sanction of the court


should be got and it would be an unfair burden to put on the trustees of a settlement, to whom the tenant for life, of course, has immediate access. He sometimes is a trustee himself. It would be much more difficult for them to take a detached view than it would be for the court.
My hon. Friends said—and I have great sympathy with this view—that one wants to reduce to a minimum the number of cases in which the costs of an application to the court might be prohibitive and might, therefore, prevent an expenditure which was really desirable under the Act. Of course, an application to the court must cost something and I am not suggesting that we can get it done for nothing. My Noble Friend has this point in mind. I will communicate to to him what has been said to-day, and when the rules come to be made, we will do our best to see that the costs of an application of this kind shall be as little as may be. There may well be cases, particularly of smaller estates, where no great expenditure on experts will be necessary, and there may be questions with regard to representation of parties, in which it would be possible by rule to cut out unnecessary expenditure. We will bear that point very much in mind and do everything that can be done to see that all proper issues and points of view are brought before the court without undue expenditure. For the reasons I have given, one practical and the other in principle, we feel we cannot accept the proposals in the Amendment.

Mr. Hutchinson: The purpose of this Amendment was to avoid any unnecessary expenditure in obtaining the sanction of the court which, having regard to the principles of this Bill, could properly be avoided. My right hon. and learned Friend has held out to us some prospect that that will be done when the rules under this Bill are framed. I entirely agree with him that it will be possible to avoid the mischief which we seek to avoid by this Amendment, by framing proper rules. In those circumstances, the purpose for which the Amendment was moved having, to some extent, been met by the assurances of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies: I hesitate to speak on a complicated Bill like this because I do not know very much about it, but I happen to be a trustee of an estate and I have found since the war began that it is not as easy to be a trustee during the emergency as it was in peace time. I have found, too, that there are several parties concerned in this problem—the landlord, the tenant, the beneficiaries, the solicitors, the accountants and the trustees. I have come in contact with some of these problems as trustee and I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell me—because the Bill is too complicated for anybody except those conversant with the law to understand it—whether it in any way makes the position of trustees more difficult than it is now. A great deal of this property has been destroyed by enemy action. The incomes of estates have declined, the expenditure for Income Tax purposes has gone up, and there are annuities to be met in connection with some estates. In some cases there is not much income left. I am, therefore, wondering whether the position of a trustee will, under this Bill, be made more difficult.

The Attorney-General: That is a very general question, but in some ways the position is made easier by the Bill. What it enables to be done in certain circumstances is this. If the life tenant, who, normally, is the person who keeps up the repairs and bears the expenses of management, and the income expenses, is able to show that the income he gets from the land and the income he gets from other sources, if he has any, are insufficient to keep the estate run efficiently and on the lines on which it has been run, assuming they are reasonably economical and proper, he can get the leave of the court to draw on the capital of the estate to enable the estate to be kept in proper condition and not to deterioriate. To that extent it eases the position of the trustees in that trustees are no doubt anxious, and in some circumstances have a duty, to see that the land they hold is properly kept up. So far as it enables that to be done in circumstances in which it might not be done if the Bill were not passed, the trustees as a body will welcome the Bill.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not wish to oppose the Bill, and I believe that the tenants for life will welcome it. I do not think, however, that the Bill is as benevolent as it appears on the face of it. It seeks to relieve the overburdened property owner at the expense of the estate itself. At the risk of some repetition, I would point out that Clause refers to Section 64 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and Section 57 of the Trustee Act, 1925, and the powers already invested in the courts under those Acts to make orders in regard to the application of capital money and the apportionment of any expenditure of money as between capital and income and so on. Clause r gives new powers to the court in certain circumstances, which are specified in Section 2, to make an order authorising any expense of action taken or proposed for the management of settled land or land held in trust for sale to be treated, as the case may be, as a capital outgoing notwithstanding that in any other circumstances such an expenditure could not be properly incurred. The circumstances set out in Sub-section (2) after admittedly qualifying it in paragraph (a), that the action taken should benefit the person entitled under the settlement are set out in paragraph (b) that the resources of the persons in possessions may be so reduced by war conditions as to render them unable to bear the expenses without causing them undue hardship. The management of settled land is to include all the acts referred to under Section 102 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and the expenses referred to therein and to include the employment of a solicitor, a surveyor, an accountant or other persons to manage the estate. It is of special interest that the hardship and impoverishment of the tenant for life owing to war conditions includes increased rates of taxation as specified under Section 6. It is clear to me that the Bill must be welcome to tenants for life for it will get them out of some of their difficulties.
The difficulties are recognised in the Bill both in a general and a particular sense such as taxation. What are the general difficulties of property owners over and above the difficulties of the rest of the community. They are very considerable. I believe I am right in saying that property owners are already bearing an unfair burden. War insurance payment is admittedly capital payment, but there are also the Rent Restriction Acts and other burdens which property owners have to bear. The Bill seeks to relieve the property owner and the tenant for life not from the burdens which the war naturally lays upon him as upon all of us but from some of those extra burdens and restrictions from which he is suffering. The Bill will leave him to maintain the property for himself and the remainder man and to carry the burdens by utilising capital in one way or another. First of all the tenant for life will be called upon to show whether he has means or resources to maintain this burden from his own income. If not it must be taken out of capital. So property owners have it both ways—heavy burdens on the one hand and slow but sure infringement of the corpus of the estate on the other. These are sacrifices which are not asked for from any other section of the community.
It was my intention to go into another point which this Bill brings up and which I think will be strictly in accord with the Third Reading. I will mention in passing that this is another of the many Statutes passed in the last 30 years which tends to the disintegration of property and the law of property, and, in so far as it does that, it tends, in my opinion, to the disintegration of society and its eventual replacement by a regime based on force. I am glad that the Bill still requires the permission of the court, because I think that is a great safeguard to the remainder man. We are rather inclined to forget too much the future and the past in the present difficulties which confront us, and we are inclined to forget the traditions on which ordered society are based. So I am glad the Attorney-General has safeguarded the remainder man by an application to the court. I am pleased too, that the Bill is of a temporary nature, as explained in Clause 2, but unfortunately once a Bill has become a Statute it is easily renewed by a generation which revels in statute law. I feel therefore that the Bill is first of all not such a benevolent Bill as we are


expected to believe, and it is another step in the disintegration of the law of property which is so rapidly occurring in the generation in which we live.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved,
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Stony Stratford Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on 18th May and published, be approved."—[Captain. McEwen.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Order read for consideration of Special Report of Committee on Public Petitions.

Sir Edward Campbell: I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in that part of their Report wherein they express their opinion, That signatures on the back of the petition sheet and sheets attached thereto should be counted whether or not the prayer is repeated at the top of the page.
This recommendation and the one which follows were put forward in the interests of economy, which is some justification for me to commend them to the House.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir E. Campbell: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Public Petitions, That in setting forth the number of signatures to each Petition they do include signatures written on the back of the Petition or of the sheets attached thereto.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and Postponed.

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS, NORTH LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: I think my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will agree that I had no choice but to raise the case of Mr. Somers on the Adjournment. Let me say at once that my constituent did not ask me to bring the matter before Parliament. In fact, I asked him whether he had any objection to my doing so, because I felt it my bounden duty not only to Mr. Somers himself but to all my constituents, to raise it here in order to give them confidence that any seeming infringement of their individual liberty can always be raised in the High Court of Parliament. The case is simply this. In December last, I received the following letter from my constituent:

"DEAR MADAM,

"May I draw your attention to the behaviour of two plain clothes policemen whose numbers are 250G and 510G? These men stopped me on my way home from work and asked to see my identity card and National Registration card. I showed them these things and they insisted that I had not got my identity card from the right quarter. Then they opened my box of tools and pulled them all over the pavement. They seized on a switch box I was carrying and said that if I could not show a receipt for this I was going inside. These men acted so much like hooligans that I went to a policeman and asked him to identify them as police officers, as only one could produce a warrant card. I told them that if they hurried they could find the shop where I had been working open, and they could verify same answers I gave them, that they inclined to disbelieve. One replied that they don't hurry, because the Government pay them just the same. I told them that if they wanted to see the receipt for my switchbox I had it at home. They then said they would come home with me and I had to carry my tool case and push my bike all the way from Balls Pond Road. On the way home they loudly asked me all sorts of impertinent questions about how I get my jobs and who gave me my identity card. One of them was threatening and the other was wheedling. When I got to the door of my house I asked them to wait at the door while I got the receipt for the switchbox. They pushed passed me, however, and said that they thought I was a deserter and that they were not going to let me out of their sight. I reminded them that they were forcing their way into a private house and they said, 'That's all right.' They came up the stairs into my rooms and I had to explain to my wife that they were police officers. This and their subsequent behaviour so upset my wife, who is expecting a baby in about three weeks' time, that I thought she was going to be ill. They


then asked to see all sorts of things—my discharge papers (I was invalided home from Egypt), ration books, my wife's identity card, my medical card, and all the time making such remarks as 'Come on mate, tell us who gave you your identity card or you are going to the station.' My wife got so frightened of them that she went and put in an emergency call for the police. In the meantime, my mother came up and one of the men threatened to take her to the police station. By the time they had finished asking for bills and papers my place looked as though it had been ransacked. They then left without a word of apology, saying they would make further inquiries. Just after they had gone the other police arrived and we explained the situation to them and I asked them if my identity card was in order and they said it was quite in order. These other officers were the efficient, courtly kind of men whom- we are accustomed to know as police officers, and I have no complaint at all to make against them. They told me that they would report the matter to the authorities at the station and said that one of the officers in charge would call on me later on. An officer did call later on and apologised for the men and said they were over zealous. I hope I am not vindictive, but police officers acting like Gestapo hooligans surely strikes at the very foundations of democracy, and if a man cannot tell the difference between a good identity card and a bad one he is not fit to be a plain clothes officer, or if there is no difference in the cards it is hardly worth having one at all. Trusting you will look into the matter,

Yours truly,

M. Somers."

I immediately forwarded this letter to the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, asking him to look into the matter. I received in reply the following letter, dated 27th January, 1943:
You sent me on the 22nd December the enclosed letter which you had received from Mr. M. Somers in which he complains of the conduct of two members of the Metropolitan Police Force who stopped him on his way home from work. You will appreciate that in the course of their normal duties it is sometimes necessary for police officers from time to time to stop and question a person who turns out to be entirely innocent. In this case, there were, I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, certain documents which the police wished to see in order to verify Mr. Somers' statements, and they accordingly went with him to his flat, which was close by. The Commissioner has gone into the matter with great care and he is satisfied that there is no ground for considering that the police officers' behaviour was in any way improper or unreasonable and as Mr. Somers states, an inspector subsequently visited his flat and tendered an apology. I hope therefore that you will be able to assure Mr. Somers that there is not the slightest reflection on him and that while the Home Secretary sympathises with his very natural feelings he does not think that the circum

stances are such as to call for any action on his part. Mr. Somers will appreciate that in carrying out their public duties the police cannot avoid at times causing some inconvenience to innocent and respectable persons.

This letter contains no repudiation or even reference to the statements made by my constituent and I therefore immediately asked my right hon. Friend whether he would go again into the matter and give it further consideration. This he agreed to do. I did not feel at all satisfied by the reply which I have just read to the House.

On 23rd February, a month later, I received a further letter from my right hon. Friend, as follows:
In accordance with your request I have looked again at our papers in connection with this incident concerning which your constituent, Mr. M. Somers, sent you the enclosed letter. I have also discussed the case with the Commissioner of Police. There has been a substantial increase in various kinds of larceny recently, particularly in blackout hours, as you are no doubt aware and when your constituent appeared on his bicycle at Balls Pond Road at 5.15 p.m. on the 15th December carrying a large wooden case, r am convinced that there was no excess of zeal on the part of the plain-clothes policeman concerned in stopping him and in asking for his identity documents. One of these was in an unusual form and aroused the police officer's suspicion, though it now appears that this was through no fault on the part of Mr. Somers. Mr. Somers has already received an ample apology from the police for the inconvenience to which he was put, and the Commissioner does not feel, in view of the circumstances outlined above, that he would be justified in administering any reprimand or admonishment to the police officers concerned. I trust that your constituent will be satisfied with the explanation I have given and in my former letter of the 27th January:

Once more there was no attempt to repudiate or even to refer to my constituent's statements and the House will see that all those letters completely disregard my main contention. In addition, when I put a Supplementary Question to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons at the beginning of April, mentioning some of the complaints made by Mr. Somers and which I have read to the House, he replied that he was unaware of these things.

While appreciating that the police had every right to stop Mr. Somers, and allowing for the fact that all of us are liable to make mistakes, my whole and only concern was with the manner and the method in which those two plainclothes police officers carried out the


investigation. That is still the only thing about which I am concerned to-day. I have given to the House what I believe to be the facts, and I submit that unless the Under-Secretary of State can give me an assurance that this version of the facts is not correct, then, in the cause of British justice and in the name of the great reputation of our police force, there is no doubt in my mind that those two police officers should be reprimanded. May ask my right hon. Friend to say when he replies whether he has taken any steps to ask Mr. Somers himself for his version of this case, or whether he has taken evidence only from the police in this matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My hon. Friend gave notice some time ago that she wished to raise this matter on the Adjournment. It concerns an occurrence which took place on 15th December of last year, but it is, of course, through no fault of my hon. Friend that she has not been able to raise it on the Adjournment hitherto. If I may make one or two general observations at the outset, I would say that this is an example of the ability of the humblest person in the land to have his individual case raised in the high court of Parliament, and I think we are all agreed that it is a good thing that that can be done. I would like to make one or two other general observations before I come to the details of this case. I would say first of all that we must realise that it is the duty of the police not only to detect crime after it has been committed, but it is also a very important part of their function to prevent the corn-mission of crime. It is also clear that it is the duty of the public to co-operate in so far as they can with the police in this important task of the prevention of the commission of crime.

Dr. Morgan: Even when the police are insulting?

Mr. Peake: No. Please let me make my case. Nobody appreciates better than the police force themselves the need for the greatest possible tact and discretion in carrying out those duties. Our police force have a name second to none in the world for the tact and discretion which they display in these matters. We must also, I think, have in our minds the fact that a substantial number of people do

not react kindly or favourably when spoken to by a policeman. It is a curious fact that many people have in the back of their minds a sort of natural hostility to any interference by the police. I think that that complex very often comes from the days of childhood when parents and nurses sometimes intimidated children by reference to the police force.

Dr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman knows very little psychology.

Mr. Peake: In recent months, and ever since the beginning of the war——

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: I do not think I can let pass what my right hon. Friend has just said about the police. If he had seen, as I have, thousands of little children all over London being escorted by the police, I do not think he would say that they were brought up with any fear of the police.

Mr. Peake: I am speaking now of grown-up people. Children to-day regard the police as their friends, but people of my generation and possibly of an older generation have a certain apprehensiveness when spoken to by members of the police force, and it is a very common thing for people not to know how to respond when spoken to by a policeman. Since the outbreak of the war and the beginning of the black-out, there has been a great increase of larcenies of all kinds and descriptions, and strong views have been expressed in the Press and in this House about the increase in petty crime. Hon. Members have spoken very strongly in regard to the despicable crime of looting the houses of persons who have suffered damage by hostile bombing, and the police have endeavoured, under the great difficulties of black-out conditions, to detect these offenders and to check this wave of crime. I think these are the circumstances which one must have at the back of one's mind in considering the case which the hon. lady has brought forward.
It is not, I think, in those circumstances at all surprising that a well-dressed young man riding on a bicycle, and carrying a large wooden packing case measuring about 2 ft. by 2 ft. 6 inches, in the gloaming—it was getting dark at 5.15 on 15th December, in fact it was probably already almost dark—should have been stopped by two plain clothes officers and asked what he was carrying.


I do not think that is in the least surprising, and I do not think the police were acting in any way in excess of their duty in asking him what the parcel contained. As my hon. Friend has very fairly said, she does not complain that the police officers in this case at any moment were acting in excess of their powers. What she does complain of, if I understand her correctly, is the manner which the policemen adopted. Therefore, there is a large measure of agreement between us. At every stage in this somewhat unfortunate episode, as I shall explain, Mr. Somers complied with the requests of the officers and the question of the excessive use of their powers does not arise. The complaints are confined to the manner which the police are said to have adopted in this case.
An unfortunate part of this incident was a very curious circumstance. When Mr. Somers was asked to display his identity card he told these two police officers that he had been discharged from the Army. If you have been discharged from the Army your National Identity Card contains three and not four letters as does the ordinary identity card. Mr. Somers told the police that he had been discharged from the Army and produced a card which had four letters on it. I will explain in a moment how that came about. It was through no fault of Mr. Somers, but it was a circumstance which served to arouse still further the suspicions which these two officers had formed. They asked him therefore if they could see his discharge papers from the Army. Mr. Somers told them that if they wanted to see those papers they would have to accompany him to his home. They therefore proceeded to do so, and the two officers walked with Mr. Somers a short distance to his flat at 47, Marquess Road. When they got there—it was a block of flats—Mr. Somers asked the police officers to stay outside while he went to look for the papers. They pointed out to him that as it was a block of flats that would give him an opportunity of evading the police if he should prove to be a deserter. Mr. Somers thereupon said, "I have nothing to fear, come in." They therefore ascended the stairs with Mr. Somers. At no stage of the proceedings did they enter Mr. Somers flat. They remained on the landing outside the flat while Mr. Somers went in and searched for the documents.

The search for the documents occupied a considerable time. Mr. Somers had difficulty in finding the documents. He became impatient and threw considerable quantities of papers out of drawers on to the floor.

Mrs. Keir: May I interrupt in case I forget the point? If at no time they went into Mr. Somers' room how did his wife know they were there?

Mr. Peake: Because Mr. Somers occupied two rooms the doors of which were open and both the police officers were standing on the landing. By this time Mr. Somers was getting very impatient. He did however produce an Armed Forces Registration Card with a different name on it to the one he had given to the police, because at the time he had served in the Army his name had been not Somers but Sarro. This was a curious circumstance. [An HON. MEMBER: "What nationality?"] I cannot tell the hon. Member that—British as far as I am aware. I think it is quite clear he is a British subject. But he produced the discharge papers in a different name to the name on his National Identity Card. When he was asked about that he said, "The explanation of that is that since my discharge from the Army I have changed my name by deed poll." When he had changed his name by deed poll, as in fact he had, he had taken his former identity card, containing only three letters which would have shown the police officers that he was in fact a man who had been discharged from the Army, to the town hall. They had issued him with a card which had four letters on it and which therefore had misled the police into thinking that he was telling them an untrue story. The House will therefore see it was a very curious and unfortunate chain of circumstances which had served to arouse the police officers' suspicions.
As regards the charges that these two police officers behaved in a hectoring and bullying manner throughout, of course there are always bound to be differences of opinion as to the manner which people adopt on these occasions, and it is quite possible that two people giving accounts of an interview, will each give a very different account of the manner which they and the other party to the interview have adopted. There is nothing in the police statements, which I have studied


with the greatest care, to show that there was any bullying or hectoring on the part of the police. But, in forming a balanced opinion upon a matter of this kind, where serious charges are made against the manner which the police have adopted, one really has to go, where there is a conflict of evidence, by matters of inference. We are bound to infer that police officers who have had considerable experience in plainclothes work, who have stopped and questioned many hundreds of people, are, on the whole, more likely to adopt a tactful and discreet manner than otherwise. They know that they are bound to get into trouble if they start bullying people. There is no need for the police to adopt a bullying manner, and these police officers were experienced in this work.
In this case there is a further matter which has a bearing on the question. There were present at various times, while the officers were interviewing Mr. Somers at his flat, his wife and his mother. His mother occupied a flat below, and kept coming up and down stairs and passing the landing, seeing these police officers. Throughout this interview the mother, who I understand to be of a highly excitable nature, and the wife, who, contrary to what my hon. Friend said—according to the statements I have—was perfectly calm throughout the interviews, kept saying to Mr. Somers, "Go to the Labour Party about it." I think it most unlikely that two police officers, with the threat that this matter was going to be taken to the Labour Party, would go on, if they had already started to do so, behaving in a hectoring or bullying manner. I have often wondered whether, if I got into trouble with the police myself, it would be better to say that I was connected with the Home Office or that I would take the matter up with the Labour Party.

Mrs. Keir: I want to know quite clearly whether my right hon. Friend has taken evidence only from the police in this matter, or whether he has taken any steps to ask Mr. Somers himself for his version of the case?

Mr. Peake: We have had Mr. Somers' version, which the hon. Lady read to the House in the letter which she brought forward.

Mr. Stokes: Is that the only time you have had Mr. Somers' version?

Mr. Peake: No, Mr. Somers has been interviewed, quite apart from the set of circumstances which have been described, by two other police officers. He was called upon later that evening by a police officer who had been summoned by Mrs. Somers, a uniformed officer, who not only listened to what Mr. and Mrs. Somers had to say but tendered a most ample apology to them for the inconvenience to which they had been put. Mr. Somers was called upon later still by a senior inspector of the "G" Division of the police force, who again listened to what they had to say, took it down, and again tendered a full apology for the inconvenience to which they had been put. Those statements have been examined in detail by the Commissioner of Police. He has gone into the matter very fully. I have seen him about it. I have gone so far as to invite my hon. Friend to meet the Commissioner, in the hope that the Commissioner could satisfy my hon. Friend that this was not a case in which the police ought to be reprimanded or blamed for their behaviour. I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not see her way to have an interview with the Commissioner, because I feel that he might have been able to exercise greater persuasive powers over her than I have been able to myself. The matter has been most fully and most adequately examined.
If there had been any hectoring; if the Commissioner had been satisfied, if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had been satisfied, that there had been hectoring or bullying, of course these police officers would have been reprimanded. But we are not able to satisfy ourselves that this has been the case. The evidence, in our view, points in the other direction. There is clear proof of a lack of balance and' of instability in the character of the mother of this gentleman, who was there, who was inciting him to take this matter to the Labour party, and to raise a song and dance about it.

Mr. Stokes: That is not lack of balance.

Mr. Peake: I do not say that that of itself shows a lack of balance. I do not want to cast any reflection on the old lady, but I could give clear evidence that she is, to some degree, mentally unstable.

Mrs. Keir: We are not discussing the mother.

Mr. Peake: What I suggest is that it is the mother who has instigated the man to carry this matter on, and to press this complaint.

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Lady support that view?

Mrs. Keir: This is the first time I have ever heard of it. As I explained at the beginning, my constituent has never at any stage asked me to raise this in Parliament; I asked him if he would mind my doing so.

Mr. Peake: I should not h Lye the slightest hesitation in letting my hon. Friend see the police reports in this case if she desires to do so. I am sure that had she availed herself of the opportunity of interviewing the Commissioner of Police he would have put these reports at her disposal. In conclusion, I would like to say, first, that Mr. Somers is a man of irreproachable character. There is nothing whatever against him in this matter. Secondly, I would like to sty that I take no exception to my hon. Friend raising this matter in the House. It is right and proper that anybody who has anything against the police should be able to bring it up in the House. Lastly. I would like to say that I am sure Mr. Somers' case has not suffered in any way through my hon. Friend being the agent through which the matter has been
brought to the attention of the House. It is true that these good people thought that they would do better if they took their complaint up to the Labour Party, but it is perfectly clear that my hon. Friend has done her duty by her constituent, as she always does, in bringing this matter before the House. I hope that if she is still not satisfied she will avail herself of an opportunity of seeing the Commissioner of Police on the matter, and I will undertake that the statements of all the police officers concerned will be put at her disposal if she so desires.

Dr. Morgan: I would like to say, as a Member, any of whose constituents may be, at any time, in a similar position, that the reply of the Under-Secretary is to me very unsatisfactory. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] People have different ideas of nonsense, just as people have different ideas of mental instability. A famous Scottish poet, Robert Burns, said, "We are all mad but me and thee, and thou art a little bit queer." The

Under-Secretary has not dealt with the case put up, which is that the police, on this occasion, acted in an abnormally hectoring manner. He has not dealt with that; he has not produced any contrary evidence. The hon. Member read a statement. The Under-Secretary has not given any evidence. He has not seen the family. Has he made any inquiries? Have the police made any inquiries about it, or have the police had any reprimands about it?
I can speak with feeling on this matter. An almost similar incident happened to me not very long ago. I was coming from Swansea and Cardiff after having spoken on the Beveridge Report and the Trade Union Acts. My wife and I arrived at Paddington Station at half-past three in the morning. We could not get any conveyance, and we were told that we would have to wait until 5.30 before we could get a tube to Hampstead. We started to walk, carrying our two bags, and on the way we were accosted by the police, who stopped us, and quite rightly. We must have looked very criminal people. They said, "What are you doing with those bags?" I said, "I am going home; would you like to see our identity cards?" The policeman said, "No, I want to open those bags." I said, "Here?" and he said, "Yes." I said that it was a very queer request for a policeman to want to see inside our bags and at the same time refuse to see our identity cards, and he replied, "In view of that, I shall take you to the police station." We started to walk to the police station, and as my home is on the way to the police station I asked him to come in and have a cup of tea. He declined, but we went into our house, and I told him what I had in my bags—a copy of the Beveridge Report, a company memorandum and my wife's personal belongings. He left the house in a most disgusting manner, without even apologising. I have his number still, but being friendly with the police at the station, I telephoned to the superintendent, and he said, "You leave this to me. He is one of those youngsters and does not know his job, I will deal with him." So these cases can arise. But what defence has the Minister to put up to an irascible and irate mother of a boy treated in this way and saying that the mother is necessarily mentally unstable?
I have been in an asylum myself, not as a patient, but for other purposes, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I would not accept his opinion or that of anyone in the Home Office about mental stability. It is a most disgraceful thing that this mother should have been regarded as unstable because she behaved in this way. I would have felt in somewhat the same way if some of my children had been treated in that manner. The case put by the hon. Lady has not been touched by the right hon. Member to-day. It is disgraceful that a man who makes such brilliant speeches in the country, especially as he did last week, should come into this House and make such an absolutely untenable defence of the Home Office. What he should do is to have an inquiry and see the family, the mother and the boy, and then, after that, see that an apology is given individually to the people concerned.
The British police are the best in the world. They are the finest body of men that could be imagined for their courtesy, courage and treatment of the ordinary civilian. Those who have travelled in America or other places abroad have to admit that the British police are an example to the police of the world, but there are a minority of individuals who do on occasion—and more and more recently—behave in a way that is quite unworthy of the high reputation of the police. When examples of that kind occur and it is found that there are bad and unworthy police, as there are bad and unworthy people in all professions, such people should be stigmatised and told that this sort of thing could not be allowed in Great Britain and people should not be treated as if the police were a Gestapo supporting totalitarian methods in this country.

Mr. Tinker: It is a pleasing feature of our Debates that the House of Commons can discuss grievances of the public, and the hon. Lady has done a good service, because there is no doubt that some young police officers do exceed their duties, especially at times like these. It should go out to everybody that they cannot treat every citizen with impunity and that they must have some regard for the people with whom they are dealing. I myself have been stopped several times when out late at night, but after a courteous inquiry as to where I was going

I have been allowed to go on my way. I was recently stopped on the highway and asked my business. I said I was going to a Ministry of Information meeting, and the constable was very nice and apologised and said that he had his duty to do. We hear so many complaints of people doing wrong and getting away with it, and the Home Secretary has been asked to take sterner measures in dealing with wrongdoers, but when a complaint comes from a Member of Parliament, I hope that the Home Office will give the person from whom the complaint comes an ample opportunity of putting his side of the case. The hon. Lady asked several times whether the man had been interviewed, and the right hon. Gentleman said he had not been interviewed, but I was not quite clear about it. If he had had an interview surely the hon. Lady would have heard about it from someone. Did only the police state their case, and was not the person who made the statement invited also? I press the Home Office to put the statement of the police alongside the man's statement and then try and come to the House with a reasoned reply. The right hon. Gentleman did not make it clear whether an interview took place.

Mr. Peake: Short of appointing an independent inquiry or a special Commissioner to make an inquiry, one has to rely upon statements taken by the police themselves either from other policemen or from the people who are making the complaint. We have not any other way except through the police force of obtaining statements from anybody. The Commissioner follows up statements not only from police officers concerned, but from the complainants, to enable him to come to a proper decision in these matters.

Mr. Tinker: The complainant was interviewed?

Mr. Peake: Oh, yes.

Mr. Tinker: That helps to clear up the matter somewhat, but the hon. Lady did not seem to be aware of that.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: What I was concerned about was that only police officers interviewed Mr. Somers. After all, they were, so to speak, the interested parties. I really think that in a case like this the people who interviewed Mr. Somers should have been wholly disinterested people.

Mr. Tinker: In cases of this sort I think a complainant might be allowed to have someone with him when he is making his statement.

Mr. Holdsworth: He can always claim that right as a citizen.

Dr. Morgan: But he does not know it.

Mr. Tinker: We know he can claim the right, but we also know that police usually interview a man when no one else is present, which might sometimes mean that he did not say what the police reported to the Home Office. A warning should go out that the rights of the citizens of this land should not be unduly interfered with because of the war. This country is fighting so that freedom of thought and action shall continue and that no avoidable injustice shall be done to any individual. I think the hon. Lady has done a good service to the House of Commons and the country in bringing this case forward to-day.

Mr. Butcher: I agree with the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), namely, that my hon.Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) has done a good service in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Nevertheless, I think we must realise that if we are to examine the conditions in which the police work in wartime and so hedge them and frighten them that they are afraid of making a genuine mistake—because every man has to gain experience—our police force will not maintain their high standard of efficiency. Let us look at the circumstances. Here is a well-dressed young man coming along the road with a large parcel. His identity card is not in order, as it would be for a man who had been discharged from the Army. There is some discrepancy of name. There are such things as enemy agents in this country, and to all these matters the police have to devote their attention. I listened with great care to the remarks of my hon. Friend and to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but I could not see how these police officers, the gentleman who lodged the complaint or the inspector who interviewed him could reproduce the exact tone and the exact words that were used. Nobody likes being cross-examined. It is not pleasant to be examined by the police as to why you are going here or there or why you did not

park your car around the corner. Nobody really likes it, but the police have their duty to do. While it is the duty of Members of Parliament to see that their constituents' complaints and grievances are voiced here, if necessary, I think we also have a duty to realise that our police are charged with a very difficult task indeed in war-time.
Our police force is engaged in this democratic country on the difficult task of treading the narrow line between excess of zeal and lack of courage in the execution of their duty. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer—I think the matter has been sufficiently ventilated—except to say that I believe Mr. Somers was right in making his complaint and that my hon. Friend was right in bringing his complaint here. None the less, I cannot understand why my hon. Friend did not take advantage of the opportunity of interviewing the Commissioner, a course she might well have adopted. I hope there will be no discouragement of police officers who do their job but in spite of that do make mistakes. What kind of Home Secretary should we have to-day if he had been debarred, through fear of making mistakes, from ever doing anything?

Mr. Montague: I would not have intervened but for one point which arose in the Under-Secretary's reply and which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). I represent the constituency which adjoins the East Islington constituency, and Marquess Road is quite near to by constituency, so I have some sort of interest in the point which has been raised. What I want to refer to is the way in which the Under-Secretary, in order to justify the police and his own position in reference to this Debate, seemed to refer with great reluctance to the mental excitement of the mother. Mental instability may mean anything, nothing or much, as is said in one of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas, but I think it rather unfortunate that that statement was made and was made in that reluctant way, which suggested more than mental instability. My purpose in rising is to give the Under-Secretary an opportunity of clearing up that point.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I have listened to this Debate with great in-


terest, and I must say that as it continued I reverted completely to the side of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who was, in my opinion, perfectly justified in bringing out the evidence in the way he did. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) did not take the opportunity of meeting the Commissioner, as she was asked to do, instead of raising this matter here to-day. If she comes here and puts all these things on the Table, she must expect my right hon. Friend to develop his case in his own way, and I do not think he did 'any more than he should have done in saying that possibly the mother of this man was unstable. This mother constantly pressed and urged her son to take action when the police were in the house. My right hon. Friend had to say something with regard to the mental temperament of the mother and chose the word "instability." I think he was justified in using that term. I think it deplorable that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) tried to attack my right hon. Friend by quoting experiences of his own. They have nothing to do with the case at all. This case in a court of law would be judged on its own evidence. When the hon. Gentleman says that he is treated with suspicion if he goes about in dark places, I leave that to the policeman's discretion——

Mr. Kirkwood: This is professional jealousy.

Dr. Morgan: I wiped the hon. Member's eye the other day and he is having his revenge now.

Dr. Thomas: What the hon. Member said about his own experiences is no justification for attacking my right hon. Friend and the evidence which he produced in order to make his case. As one who is a lover of liberty, as my right hon. Friend probably knows—and here I would disagree with what he said about the complex some people had about being ordered about. I would not call such a complex one laid down in childhood, but a complex instinctive in every true Englishman—I say that my right hon. Friend put his case very fairly and as he was entitled to do.

Mr. Peake: In response to the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) I would like to say that I considered my words very carefully on this point and that instead of adding to or taking anything away from them, I would rather show him afterwards the reports on this matter which I have in my hand.

Mr. Montague: Reports of what?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.